Pledge of Allegiance Ruled Unconstitutional

I don't see what's so absurd about it. Even if you disagree, you have to admit that whether or not the government should lead schoolchildren in an oath of religious feality is worth looking at.

MW:Lifetime appointments should be eliminated, and curreent judges who issue facile, nonsensical rulings should face impeachment

Your mere disagreement of a ruling does not mean that it is facile or nonsensical.

I wouldn't blame this individual judge for being confused by Supreme Court precedents, but if the A.P. story is correct, I sure as hell do blame him for claiming he was bound by his own circuit's 2002 decision - the same one the Supremes struck down in 2004.

And it would be really, really bad if justices thought that their salaries depended on making sure they ruled the way that the majority outside the courtroom was chanting. That way lies disastrous injustice.

(Not that we want judges to completely ignore the laws, either -- but there's a reason why "continuance of office during good behavior" was actually a Constitutional requirement instead of just something the Founders wrote about.)

That said, judges who get too far out of whack need to be dealt with, but the vehicle for that is appeals to a higher court (and then the highest), appointment of new judges, and ultimately a Constitutional amendment if you can't get opinions changed any other way.

I'd like to see conservatives cry about judicial activism when it promotes conservative points of view. They probably won't, however.

Mannish: Nor does my disagreement mean that the ruling is non-facile or sensical!

X: Yeah, I noted that in the update. The SCOTUS really screwed the pooch on this one.

TZ: Our judges are already completely politicized, we may as well recognize that fact and move along. One of the checks on judges is that Congress can impeach them, and I think they should go after a few just to scare the rest into submission.

Mark: I didn't say anything about judicial activism, I think that's mostly a term used to label rulings one disagrees with. I think this decision was just stupid. Judges are people too, and they do stuff to get attention and advance their own agendas.

MW: You may not have said anything about judicial activism... but many other conservatives have.

It's absurd to prevent children from reciting the pledge, or it's absurd to require children to recite the pledge?

It is at least arguable that making an active pledge of allegiance is really quite an important promise, rather like marriage, and as such should only be undertaken by competent adults, however cute a classroom of 6 year olds lisping along together is.

The point here, though, is those two words "under God". By requiring children to recite the pledge with those words in it, you are requiring children to profess the existance of God every morning. In a Christian school, or a Jewish school, or a Muslim school, that would seem to be unobjectionable. It seems a little harsh to require athiest or polytheist American children to deny their faith every morning, though.

The solution to all this mess is straightforward, though. There is a clear disagreement between athiest campaigners such as Mr. Newdow and the Christian majority about exactly what the first amendment means for a state-provided service, or for services provided with state funds. It is the place of the courts to interpret the law, but if the law is unclear, it is the job of Congress to clarify its intentions. So maybe it's time that Congress made clear, with a constitutional amendment for the states to ratify if necessary, exactly what the establishment of religion clause means.

X: Yeah, I noted that in the update. The SCOTUS really screwed the pooch on this one.

Clayton's point, which you note in the update, is completely different from mine. Clayton's point is that it is excusable for a judge (generically) to think the Pledge is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court precedents on the Establishment Clause are all over the map. Mine is that it is not excusable for a judge (this particular one) to claim he is bound by a specific case that he knows has been overruled. That error is as basic as forgetting that the Ninth Circuit answers to the Supreme Court and not vice-versa.

Sam: No students are required to recite the pledge, though there is often time set aside for students to voluntarily say the pledge.

X: I heard some arguments that since the SCOTUS only reversed because of standing, the 9th's rulings on other matters still had precedencial (?) value. Then others said the SCOTUS "vacated" the ruling rather than "reversing" it, which is different, I guess.

The difference between vacating a judgment and reversing it is that vacatur removes all precedent as though the ruling had never happened, while reversal sets a contrary precedent of its own. By ruling on standing "only," the Supremes effectively overruled the Ninth Circuit on the issue of choosing to hear the case, and effectively vacated (though admittedly they didn't use the v-word) the rest. Indeed, it would be have been quite odd for the Supremes to have ruled that Newdow lacked standing, and then proceed to rule on the merits of his case as though he had standing after all. By "only" ruling on standing, they ruled that the entire case was one big mistake.

Now, the reason it gets a bit confusing is that sometimes a higher court will reverse a lower court decision in part, and affirm it in part. They clearly didn't do that. Other times, they may choose to rule on some parts of the case, and allow other parts to stand without ruling on them at all. That works when some of the issues can stand alone. Suppose, for example, that the SC only reviewed Newdow's standing to raise some of the legal arguments he advanced, but not others. In that case, all the issues he lacked standing to challenge would be wiped away, but the issues he had standing (per the Ninth Circuit, uncontradicted by the Supreme Court) would stand. That didn't happen here; the Supremes ruled he didn't have standing to bring any part of his case.