Judge Says Pledge Unconstitutional!
From the SacBee, Judge: School pledge is unconstitutional (you may have to register).
"What do you do? says the talent scout.
"Well," says, the judge, "I bend over in public and ---k myself in the --s."
What's the name of your act?
"The Aristocrat!"
Ad tag:
Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools was declared unconstitutional Wednesday by a federal U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton, ruling in the second attempt by an atheist to have the pledge removed from classrooms. The man (atheist Michael Newdow) lost his previous battle before the U.S. Supreme Court.So this US Federal District Judge goes into a talent scout and says, "I have a great act for you!"[...]
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.
Newdow, an attorney and a medical doctor, filed an identical case on behalf of three unnamed parents and their children. Karlton said those families have the right to sue.
"What do you do? says the talent scout.
"Well," says, the judge, "I bend over in public and ---k myself in the --s."
What's the name of your act?
"The Aristocrat!"
Posted by movermike on
Wednesday September 14, 2005 at 12:12pm
For an atheist this is an easy test, and the only thing on trial is the court system itself.
Compare to the New London property case where the court disregarded another provision in the bill of rights?
The difficult case, even for an atheist, is the Roe v. Wade case; without the need to reference religion in any way. The prospective health of a child cannot be divorced from the healthy conduct of the pregnant mother from the outset of pregnancy, particularly within the first trimester. The trimester thing, for the purposes of abortions, was a bit of arbitrary line drawing. I would not find a constitutional restraint to a state ban on alcohol consumption the instant a woman becomes pregnant, even during the first trimester of pregnancy.
Does the word God mean nothing for purposes of the pledge? If so, why then must it be included? Other than to make some political statement; as if that would make a believer out of non-believer anyhow. It seems much less important than say, discussing whether the schools should distribute condoms, which would certainly have a much greater impact.