|
Sind es es allein die Gerichte, die noch, genau wie bei uns, die Demokratie aufrechterhalten? February 28, 2003 Appeals Court Reinstates Ban on `Under God` in Pledge By ADAM LIPTAK ver the vehement objections of 9 of its 24 active judges, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, essentially let stand today a decision that the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional. The deeply divided court declined a petition to review a 2-to-1 ruling i June by a three-judge appellate panel that had immediately prompted a huge public debate — and was stayed almost as quickly. Under that decision, schools may not require students to listen to the Pledge if it includes the words "under God." Unless the Supreme Court takes action, that decision, amended today by the original three-judge panel to specify that it applied only to public school students, will now become the law in nine Western states, affecting 9.6 million students. The full appeals court`s decision not to take the case surprised legal experts, with some speculating that some of the votes against rehearing the case were simply cast to hasten Supreme Court review. In a statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicated that the Bush administration would ask the Supreme Court to hear the case. "The Justice Department will spare no effort to preserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance to the American flag," he said. "We will defend the ability of Americans to declare their patriotism through the time-honored tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge." Denials of petitions for full-court rehearings are generally dry, one- or two-sentence affairs. Not so here. Judge Diarmuid F. O`Scannlain, writing for six judges who favored full-court review, called the panel`s decision "wrong, very wrong — wrong because reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is simply not a `religious act` as the two-judge majority asserts, wrong as a matter of Supreme Court precedent properly understood, wrong because it set up a direct conflict with the law of another circuit, and wrong as a matter of common sense." "If reciting the Pledge is truly `a religious act` in violation of the Establishment Clause,` of the First Amendment, he continued, "then so is the recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National anthem.` Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was one of the two judges in the original majority, was the only judge to explain his vote against rehearing. Such explanations are uncommon, and Judge Reinhardt said he did so because he felt "compelled to discuss a disturbingly wrongheaded approach to constitutional law manifested in the dissent authored by Judge O`Scannlain," which had noted the exceptional "public and political reaction" to the original decision. "We may not — we must not — allow public sentiment or outcry to guide our decisions," Judge Reinhardt wrote. "It is the highest calling of federal judges to invoke the Constitution to repudiate unlawful majoritarian action," he continued. "Any suggestion, whenever or wherever made, that federal judges should be encouraged by the approval of the majority or deterred by popular disfavor is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and must be firmly rejected." Judge O`Scannlain responded that his opinion "has nothing to do with bending to the will of an outraged populace, and everything to do with the fact that Judge Goodwin and Judge Reinhardt misinterpret the Constitution and 40 years of Supreme Court precedent. That most people understand this makes the decision no less wrong." The case arose from a suit brought by Michael A. Newdow of Sacramento, Calif., an atheist who had challenged the Pledge of Allegiance on behalf of his 8-year-old daughter over the objections of the child`s mother, Sandra Banning, of Elk Grove, who has sole legal custody and has described herself as a Christian. |
|
| aus der Diskussion: | Guten Morgen Mr. Bush |
| Autor (Datum des Eintrages): | Joerver (01.03.03 12:54:58) |
| Beitrag: | 120 von 35,423 (ID:8766877) |
| Alle Angaben ohne Gewähr © wallstreetONLINE | |