No More "Under God"?! As If...(I Wish)

I picked up the following story on a winger site that of course, reframed and misrepresented it to create the impression that the ACLU, atheists and of course by inference, liberals, were intent on forcing atheism down American throats (yawn).

After leaving an obligatory pithy comment I read the original AP story looking for what I knew actually existed--a pro-religious tactical maneuver to set off wingers during the Roberts hearings so they would have the correct amount of flame under their asses to, as usual, act like good salivating Pavlovian pooches.

Here's the AP story via CNN: Federal judge declares Pledge unconstitutional

Here are the items you need to know:

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal judge declared the reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools unconstitutional Wednesday in a case brought by the same atheist whose previous battle against the words "under God" was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court on procedural grounds.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that the pledge's reference to one nation "under God" violates school children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of.

-snip-

Karlton, ruling in Sacramento, said he would sign a restraining order preventing the recitation of the pledge at the Elk Grove Unified, Rio Linda and Elverta Joint Elementary school districts in Sacramento County, where the plaintiffs' children attend.

-snip-

The decision sets up another showdown over the pledge in schools, at a time when the makeup of the Supreme Court is in flux.

Wednesday's ruling comes as Supreme Court nominee John Roberts faces day three of his confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee. He would succeed the late William H. Rehnquist as chief justice.

-snip-

The Becket Fund, a religious rights group that is a party to the case, said it would immediately appeal the case to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the court does not change its precedent, the group would go to the Supreme Court.

"It's a way to get this issue to the Supreme Court for a final decision to be made," said fund attorney Jared Leland.

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

A three-judge panel of that circuit ruled that the pledge is a patriotic exercise, not a religious affirmation similar to a prayer.

"Undoubtedly, the pledge contains a religious phrase, and it is demeaning to persons of any faith to assert that the words 'under God' contain no religious significance," Judge Karen Williams wrote for the 4th Circuit. "The inclusion of those two words, however, does not alter the nature of the pledge as a patriotic activity."

-snip-

Karlton, appointed to the Sacramento bench in 1979 by President Carter, wrote that the case concerned "the ongoing struggle as to the role of religion in the civil life of this nation" and added that his opinion "will satisfy no one involved in that debate."

Karlton dismissed claims that the 1954 congressional legislation inserting the words "under God" was unconstitutional. If his ruling stands, he reasoned that the school children and their parents in the case would not be harmed by the phrase because they would no longer have to recite it at school.

And you can bet that none of the context of this case will find it's way into winger spin, i.e. that this is not the work of liberal "activist judges", just a judge following the letter of the law.

"Activist judges" as they would be defined by Scalia are in fact what theocons desperately seek; judges schooled in the revisionist theory of "strict constitutionalism" and who will act to reinterpret all law (thereby actively changing legislation). Such strict consitutionalism is strict only in the holder's belief that they can intuit a bias toward religion in the constitution which in fact, does NOT exist.

And in case you doubt how this is being misrepresented just read winger rantings here and here.