For those of you who didn’t notice last week, two judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wiped their asses with the Constitution, presumably because their unethical and spineless souls have been eaten by their imaginary friends. Honestly, this case is about as disingenuous as Bush v. Gore or Dred Scott v. Sandford.
In response, I wrote a pretty brief piece on the case. Meanwhile, the anonymous author of the blog, Not a Potted Plant, took his time and really cranked out a piece of brilliant analysis of the case.
It is here. It is dead on. It is brilliant.
I am sure that he would not think as highly of me (heh). But that’s okay.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
As far as your last remark (about civility): I often tell believers this: “how do you see this? Well, that is how I see YOUR beliefs. Yep, I’ve been called all sorts of names. :)
Thanks for the link! If you read the Newdow IV opinion closely, you’ll note that the challenge was to the policy found in Cal. Education Code section 52720. That law requires that a public school conduct “appropriate patriotic exercises.” While the Pledge of Allegiance is one such exercise, the law does not mandate the Pledge, which is a point cited by the majority in a facile attempt to claim that the Pledge is not mandatory or compulsive.
So what I’d like to do is take the majority up on its challenge. My idea is to develop a set of “appropriate patriotic exercises” that can be used as an alternative to the Pledge. Some social conservatives who lurk at my site have offered some static on the issue so I could use some help from readers here about brief, patriotic, noncontroversial things that might be taught to kids at the start of a school day. If you’re interested in this idea, please take a look and maybe even help out.
How about this?
I like it!
Here’s my reply to notapottedplant.blogspot.com, who unfortunately does not allow comments on his blog without registration. So I’ll post it here instead:
——————————-
OK, really, stop being such a weenie with your “aspirations for the bench” (see About Me) and “I stand silent”. This is exactly why the unmoral majority can run ruff-shod you and everyone else–BECAUSE YOU ARE TOO MUCH OF A WEENIE TO STAND UP FOR YOUR OWN RIGHTS. If you want things changed, you have to take it to the streets, the schools, the convention halls, NOT THE COURTROOM. When the pledge gets recited, ACT UP. Make it clear you object to the words “under god”. Instead, SHOUT OUT, at the TOP OF YOUR LUNGS, “…one Nation, NOT UNDER ANY GOD,…” That will make it clear you will not be bullied. If enough people are willing to act up and make a scene, people will stop saying the offending words, and we’ll be back to simply, “indivisible”. Until then, don’t ask someone else to stand up for your rights when you are not willing to fight for them yourself. How un-American.
Alan, you are welcome go to my blog and see my response to this comment there.
In the basement of Alan’s parents, tyranny holdeth no sway.
Jesus christ, Alan… that was pretty douchetastic.
I myself have swallowed the fairy tale when I had to. I recall one time, I was being being sworn in to the bar of a federal district just before a hearing in that court. The judge seemed to be delighted to be swearing me in, and gave the court an inspiring lecture about professionalism and justice and said to me “So, understanding this, Mr. Randazza, is it your wish to join this brotherhood before this court?”
Naturally I said “yes, your honor.”
He then had me take the oath, and at the very end of it he asked “so help you god?”
The world flashed white for me… at that moment, the best thing for me to do personally would be to say “no, your honor. With all due respect, I will adhere to every portion of my oath, but I am an Atheist, and I do not believe in God, and therefore, I will not swear an oath upon that which I do not believe.”
And then what would have happened?
Perhaps the judge would have grinned, said “fair enough,” and we would have moved on to a fair hearing.
Or perhaps it would have become a debate. Perhaps it would have prejudiced my client’s case. Perhaps.
For certain, it would have meant that at least 5 minutes of my time — for which my client was paying — was spent on my personal beliefs.
Accordingly, as a servant of my client, I looked at the judge, smiled, and nodded “yes, sir.”
And then I proceeded to bitch-slap my opponent’s crappy argument, defeated my opponent’s motion, and ultimately caused the case to settle without my client paying a dime.
To this day, I wish I had spoken up == but I also believe that I did the right thing.
You sold out, Randazza. You should have shouted “THIS. IS. ATHEISM!!!!!”, and then kicked the court reporter into the well.