[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Guest Commentary June 27, 2002
Pledge of Allegiance Ruling Is Outrageous
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchison
Yesterday's decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Newdow v. U.S. Congress was, in a word, outrageous. It is inexplicable that this man so seriously objected to his daughter having to listen and watch others recite the pledge at their school. Keep in mind, in this country no one can be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. It is simply a matter of respect.
It is appalling that this court took the time and judicial resources to resuscitate this case which the district court had already dismissed for failing to state a claim. This complaint was a mess. The plaintiff, Dr. Newdow, who represented himself, asked a Federal court to order the President to change a law. The court took great pains to find a claim in Mr. Newdow's complaint and then to rule in his favor.
Free Newsletter
Get the scoop on important legislation, Congressional action, election updates, hard-hitting political commentary, the latest developments in the War on Terror...and more! Just enter your email address below.
Privacy: Your name and email address will be confidential - never rented, never sold.
He did this at a time when Federal judicial resources are very strained. The Nation is trying to function in the speedy manner required by the sixth amendment, with 89 judicial vacancies, a staggering number, representing 10 percent of the Federal judiciary.
According to the Judicial Conference, in the past three decades, a U.S. Courts of Appeals judges' average caseload increased by nearly 200 percent. In light of these strained resources, it is appalling to me that the court took time to resuscitate this very flawed case.
The Pledge of Allegiance plays a very important part in the citizenship experience of every American. It is part of the patriotic thread that weaves us all together in times of crisis and times of celebration.
If the ninth circuit's interpretation of the establishment clause stands, many national ceremonies and celebrations will be negatively impacted. Singing of songs with references to God on government property will be prohibited. For example, songs such as "Star Spangled Banner," "God Bless America," and "America the Beautiful," which Americans sing every Fourth of July on the steps of this building. But such references are not just important in ties of celebration. On September 11 we stood on the steps of the Capitol and sang "God Bless America." Countless Americans uttered the phrase "God Bless America" and prayed together in public spaces. This ruling could prohibit that.
Judge Ferdinand Fernandez wisely dissented from this decision. His words have been quoted before.
He said it beautifully. Such phrases as "In God we trust" or "under God" have no tendency to establish a religion in this country or to suppress anyone's exercise or nonexercise of religion. He went on, in eloquent terms, and defends his dissent.
I believe this ruling will be soundly rejected. I was so pleased that yesterday the majority leader and the minority leader moved the Senate very quickly in expressing its disapproval immediately following the ruling yesterday. The Ninth Circuit is not unfamiliar with going out on a limb, and the Supreme Court is not unfamiliar with striking it down. This circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country.
There is certainly nothing wrong with pushing the envelope and using an original interpretation on novel issues of law, but this court repeatedly makes rulings which countervail standing precedent. Instead of administering justice, it seems some judges in the ninth circuit are far more interested in making social policy statements. It is not what the Constitution asks them to do and it is not what the American people pay them for.
The first amendment prohibits Congress from passing any law establishing a religion. Coming as they did from a land with an established religion where those of other faiths were not well tolerated, they set the highest value on freedom of religion. But they were not advocating freedom from religion.
By passing this legislation today the Senate will make clear that we understand the Founders' intention. We will reiterate our support for the Pledge of Allegiance as codified and our national motto, "In God we trust."
Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, is a U.S. Senator from Texas. The above commentary has been adapted from a speech Sen. Hutchison delivered on the floor of the Senate, June 27, 2002. To contact her, Click Here.
The above column has been distributed by PoliticsOL.com.
