Today the Supreme Court dismissed the case brought by the California (where else?) atheist who wanted to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance. While I am glad that 8 justices decided to dismiss the case, I wish that they had not left us open for the sequel at some point in the future.
Apparently, the issue that brought about the dismissal had more to do with the plaintiff's parental standing than it did with the phrase's appropriateness in the pledge.
The court said atheist Michael New-dow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
New-dow is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, the court said
It is notable that 3 of the justices consider the Pledge constitutional as it stands right now.
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
I find it interesting that there are at least 5 other justices who weren't willing to go that far. It seems to me that this silence will leave the door open for others to try to have the words removed.
The good news for now is that the Supreme Court overturned the space cadets from California who ruled the pledge unconstitutional in the first place.
The high court's lengthy opinion overturns a ruling two years ago that the teacher-led pledge was unconstitutional in public schools. That appeals court decision set off a national uproar and would have stripped the reference to God from the version of the pledge said by about 9.6 million schoolchildren in California and other western states.
I wonder how many of the Democrats who roared in disbelief and outrage that the Pledge of Allegiance was declared unconstitutional will remember that outrage if it happens again at a time when the nation is not in the patriotic fervor that existed when the California ruling was made. It would have been political suicide for them to agree with the ruling at that time.
I for one am glad that "under God" is still in our Pledge. It absolutely belongs there. It is God who has protected our country since its founding. Still it is evident that the Os are out there chipping away at the foundations. They have won major judicial victories with the recent lower court decisions regarding homosexual marriage (an oxymoron if ever there were one.) I pray that the Supreme Court will have the wisdom and the balls to protect the institution of marriage when these decisions are challenged in their forum. God help us.
No comments:
Post a Comment