Conservatives: Pledge Ruling Shows Why Justices Like Roberts Are Needed
by Jody Brown and Jim Brown
September 15, 2005
(AgapePress) - It's being called an "exercise in judicial tyranny," an "appalling ruling" -- and an indication just how important it is that John Roberts be confirmed for the U.S. Supreme Court. Such are the reactions among conservatives to Wednesday's court ruling coming out of California -- for the second time in three years -- that because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the two-word phrase "under God," it is unconstitutional for it to be recited in public schools. Federal District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled yesterday (September 14) that it is unconstitutional for public school children to recite the Pledge. Why? Because, in Karlton's words, it violates children's right to be "free from a coercive requirement to affirm God." The judge said he is bound by precedent set by the San Francisco-based Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which agreed with atheist Michael Newdow in 2002 that it was unconstitutional for the Pledge to be recited in public schools.
The group Focus on the Family Action says "under God" is being targeted again. Tom Minnery, that group's vice president of government and public policy, says once again the country is "haunted" by the Ninth Circuit's "terrible" ruling four years ago.
"This country was founded on the acknowledgment of God and His blessings," Minnery offers in a press release. "And now, because the Supreme Court failed to rule on the merits of Michael Newdow's original case, 'under God' is in the crosshairs again."
Last year, the nation's highest court dismissed the Ninth Circuit's 2002 decision, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter, whom he had inserted into the middle of the controversy. But the Supreme Court was roundly criticized for not dealing with the core issues in the case.
Louis Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition takes issue with Karlton's citation of precedent from that earlier case. "[T]he Supreme Court tossed out the Ninth Circuit's ruling because Newdow had no legal standing to bring the suit in the first place," Sheldon points out. "Basing a legal decision upon a previously flawed decision from the Ninth Circuit is an exercise in judicial tyranny and an abuse of power."
Both Minnery and Sheldon -- and others -- are pointing to Karlton's ruling as proof positive what the ongoing battle over judicial nominations is all about. And why it is critical that John Roberts, nominee for chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, be confirmed.
Minnery says Karlton's "appalling ruling ... further underscores the importance of swiftly confirming [Roberts]. It is only a matter of time before this case is brought back to Washington -- and it is imperative that Roberts, a strict constructionist, is leading that court."
Sheldon chimes in, saying yesterday's ruling on the Pledge "is all the more reason why it is absolutely essential that President Bush's next pick for the Supreme Court be a sound constitutionalist like Judge John Roberts -- not a judicial activist." It is important, adds Sheldon, that judges on the high court understand their role is "that of an umpire -- not a pitcher or batter -- in legal matters."
The chief counsel for Concerned Women for America says if the citizens of the nation need another example of the critical nature of nominations to the federal bench, "this ought to do it." Jan LaRue notes that two other federal appeals courts -- the Seventh and the Fourth -- have both upheld the Pledge against charges it violates the Establishment Clause.
"[But yesterday's] ruling is the ongoing fall-out from the nutty Ninth Circuit ruling," LaRue points out. "If anybody things Supreme Court nominee John Roberts would make a wacky ruling like this one, not to worry."
Example of Secular Humanism at Work
Observers say it is likely Newdow's current case, like his first one, will end up before the Supreme Court. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council concurs, saying that is why it is important to confirm to the high court individuals who "respect our nation's history and tradition -- because militant secularists will not stop until they have eradicated any mention of God in the public square."
Brannon Howse could not agree more. The conservative author and president of Worldview Weekend believes Newdow v. Congress of the United States, et al. is an example of a secular humanist judge making law, not applying it.
"We are increasingly moving toward the cliff of secularization of America -- and Americans must choose between the moral law or martial law," says Howse. "In fact, that's exactly what President Harry S. Truman [meant when he stated] 'If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we'll finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the state.'"
Howse, author of the new book One Nation Under Man? The Worldview War Between Christians and the Secular Left, says it is unfortunate that the U.S. is living under "judge-made" laws instead of the Constitution. "If we don't teach our children in school that there is a God, that there is an authority higher than government, then government becomes the only authority," says Howse. "What the government gives, the government can take away.
The author continues: "There has got to be an understanding that the way you live your life will be rewarded or punished -- in this life and the next. And that's why the framers were so intent on teaching a Christian worldview that was based on the moral law of God."
Like Minnery, Sheldon, and others, Howse believes this ruling handed down by Judge Karlton underscores the need to appoint justices in the mold of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
