Newdow Pledge of Allegiance Case Decision Due Today from Supreme Court

[Mattforclark]

says NPR... Today at 1 EST, supposedly.

[Mattforclark]

1. Which is sort of strange, because they normally release decisions

on mondays...

[freetobegay]

2. This could go either way

Anyone want to take bets?

[Mattforclark]

3. Since Scalia is out...

it's just possible that Newdow could win. I don't know.

How's that for a prediction?

[freetobegay]

5. Thats my prediction also.

eom

[dsewell]

8. I'd guess a ruling against Newdow

I thought the ruling wasn't expected until summer. If it's really coming out today, that's very quick, which I would guess means a lopsided decision one way or the other, and considering the rather hostile questioning Newdow got I'd guess a negative one. I'll predict a 6-2 ruling against Newdow.

The secular humanist in me will be disappointed, because I don't think "under God" should ever have been added to the Pledge. The political pragmatist will be less unhappy, because if the Court did rule against "under God" it would light a fire under the religious conservatives and give Bush a great big issue (namely, supporting a Constitutional amendment) to distract everyone from Iraq and the economy.

[trotsky]

10. I'd go with 6-2, MAYBE 5-3.

Ginsberg and Stevens for sure, with Souter perhaps chiming in to dissent.

[mikey_1962]

4. Is there a line on the Supremes in Vegas??

[AZCat]

12. I don't know, but there is this: (hehe)

A Fantasy Supreme Court League!

http://www.lawpsided.com/contest.htm

Great stuff, but it's too late to enter into this season's pool (Oct '03 to Jun '04).

:)

[WillParkinson]

7. There is no way Newdow will win...

It would piss off too many people and I can't see the Supreme Court siding with him over the wishes of the government.

[SaveElmer]

6. There is no way Newdow wins

Book it!!!

[booksenkatz]

9. The same gang who declared that

counting the votes in Florida would harm petitioner Bush will conclude that it isn't an undue burden for Newdow's daughter to "simply" decline to say the words "under God" while her class is reciting the POA. What's so hard about not saying two words, right?
:eyes:

This case chaps my ass like no other, because it's so breathtakingly obvious that REQUIRING a citizen of this country to make ANY declaration about God, one way or the other, belief in or unbelief in, for or against, is unconstitutional. IT'S NO ONE'S BUSINESS HOW I FEEL ABOUT GOD.

[jobycom]

11. Tricky, but they decided awfully quickly

I'm not sure. This court has ruled against forced prayer a few times. Scalia recused himself, and only gets one vote (through Thomas) this time. Rehnquist is a given. And I'd guess the usual splits will happen, with O'Connor and Kennedy as swing votes.

There was hostile questioning during the trial, but it was mostly centered on the argument that the pledge is a prayer. That will lose. But they may decide that forcing a child to hear a government authority figure profess a belief in God is unconstitutional. It is, it should be ruled that way. (And damn the consequences, right it right, and if we don't do what's right when we have the chance there is no point in winning elections, anyway.)

If O'Connor and Kennedy split, Newdow wins. It's possible. But I don't think it likely. Kennedy is a wimp who will be afraid to go against the public will (and Scalia). O'Connor has a bit more judicial integrity, but not much imagination, so I'm not sure she'll accept the argument.

[Nashyra]

14. He should win but I have mixed emotions

If he wins it will galvanize the RW and the voter registration drive for the Repukes, anyone not voting for the idiot will come out and vote for the greater good because of what elese would happen on the "Liberal Supreme court" If they find for him and it is found unconstutional my thought it would be a decision to throw the election to the *. Nothing would trigger an onslaught more than this for the fundies and the moderates. I don't know, this resident is so dangerous I almost hope they rule against for the greater good and we can get rid of this jerk in the RW, but then again why should it come down to want the SCOTUS to decide against the constution because we have such a hack in office. The state of this country is dismal.

[jobycom]

15. That would be easy to counter-- kerry would just condemn the decision

Kerry would publicly disagree with the decision, state that he will look into legislative solutions, maybe even do like Bush Daddy and propose an Amendment, but then demurely add "I will obey the law of the land, of course," then blast Bush. Democrats can easily counter any arguments that the Court is liberal by pointing to Bush v Gore.

Bush, meanwhile, would have dozens of kids at every campaign stop reciting the pledge, and the endless appearance of these kids on the TV would eventually wear thin for many. Kerry could comment that he agrees with Bush, but that he thinks that symbolism is inappropriate, that he prefers to discuss his differences with Bush.

It would rile people up, but it would die down by November.

[Mattforclark]

13. nevermind, they might not be deciding yet

they might just be talking about the case on the radio. I'm not sure... Might be a false alarm.