e-Claire

NB

. . . The fact that it did not say "Geddoutahere, the Pledge is not a matter for SCOTUS because it is not related to the Law, the Constitution or anything else SCOTUS considers or rules upon," gives the Pledge legal and official standing. Sort of a blessing by omission. . . The SCOTUS ruled that the plaintiff/father did not have legal authority to speak for his child due to his custody situation. It said to him, "Geddoutahere; you, Mister, have no legal standing." It did not make any statement in any way about the issue of the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The fact that it did not say "Geddoutahere, the Pledge is not a matter for SCOTUS because it is not related to the Law, the Constitution or anything else SCOTUS considers or rules upon," gives the Pledge legal and official standing. Sort of a blessing by omission. As the word "God" in the Pledge refers to a single deity, it constitutes an officially stated opinion in favor of monotheism -- an opinion on a religious matter. Some future incarnation of SCOTUS, made up of people of different backgrounds and persuasions, might rule in favor [or not rule so that it becomes, by omission, in favor] of the words "God, Goddesses, Shiva, Allah, Harold and Buddah." As no one opposed the usage of "God," there will be nary a legal leg to object upon. I'm just sayin' . . .

1. It did not make any statement in any way about the issue of the word “God” in the Pledge of Allegiance.

   The majority didn’t, but three of the eight Justices (Rehnquist, O’Connor and Thomas) did.  And a fourth, Justice Scalia, recused himself because his public statements on the case had already made it clear what he thought of the Establishment Clause issue.

   “God” as an endorsement of monotheism strikes me as a stretch.  I’ve heard it used as a proxy for “the gods” on more than a few occasions.

   Posted by Xrlq  on  06/14/04  at  01:46 PM

2. I don’t know—is the opinion of the dissenting minority of any legal weight, or is it info only?

   [I am so far from being a lawyer, not only do I not play one in a blog, I play someone who’s never even *met* one...]

   God” as an endorsement of monotheism strikes me as a stretch.

   God/gods; man/men, dollar/dollars—hell, it’s all the same, eh?  Good to know that if I ever lose a bet to you for twenty bucks, I can pay up with one buck and you won’t care about the diff.

   Posted by Claire  on  06/14/04  at  03:12 PM

3. Concurring and dissenting opinions are not binding law, but they are useful nonetheless because they give us a lot of insight into how those judges would rule if they were in the majority.  Even more so, here, since the majority didn’t touch the underlying issue at all; for all we know, all nine thought the First Amendment issue was bogus.  All we know for sure is that when the next Michael Newdow finds his way to the court, at least four Justices will vote against him.  Justice Kennedy should be an easy fifth.

   As to singular vs. plural, you picked some rather interesting examples.  Like the word “God,” the word “man” is often used to refer to all men (and women) collectively, and not just to one individual man.  And if we bet each other twenty dollars on any issue, and I win, I’ll happily accept one piddly twenty dollar bill as payment.  [If I lose, I won’t pay you anything, as gambling debts are unenforceable.]

   Posted by Xrlq  on  06/14/04  at  05:47 PM

<< Back to main