Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Confuses Itself

Fearing ultimate and inevitable reversal at the United States Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sitting in San Francisco has rejected the petition of serial litigator Michael Newdow who wished to remove the words "In God We Trust" from American coinage and "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

The most reversed Circuit Appellate Court in the United States had previously ruled in Newdow's earlier case that the words violated the separation of church and state (which is not mentioned in the Constitution). In all fairness, the Ninth Circuit was overruled that time by the United States Supreme Court on procedural grounds. Newdow had objected to the Pledge words on behalf of his minor daughter whose school recited the Pledge each day. The Supreme Court declared that the father had no standing to file the suit, since he wasn't the party directly affected by the Pledge. However, the majority decision used wording about historical context and government endorsement of religion that were clear warnings that if a similar case were to be brought before them again in proper form by a petitioner with proper standing, they would still rule against the petition and establish once and for all that the words do not offend the First Amendment.

You may be somewhat familiar with this ongoing legal laugh-fest, but you should have a little background on the off-kilter Newdow. He's not stupid by any means, just slightly crazed. A Brown University graduate, he has many of the traits of those who got their degree from the most leftish of the Ivy League schools. Still, his degree was in biology, so that probably wasn't the sole reason for his cuckoo political stances. He attended UCLA Medical School, and was licensed as a California M.D. in 1978. He then went on to the University of Michigan Law School, getting his law degree in 1988 and passing the Bar Exam in 2002. I'm not quite sure why it took him so long to pass the Bar Exam.

He has told the Brown University Alumni Magazine that he can't remember ever believing in God and that he was "born an atheist." But still, he is an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church. Don't let that throw you. So am I. It's a scam not-for-profit outfit located in Modesto, California that somehow has never been found to be unlawful. Pay the money, you get your ordination. I got mine when some of my fellows got drunk and decided that I would be a very fine Universal Life Church Minister. The day I was appointed to the pro-tem municipal court bench, they presented the certificate to me, and chanted God bless Judge Hawk. We all had a good laugh, although my wife never entirely saw the humor in it. Now you know how meaningful the expression "sober as a judge" really is.

But he is also the co-founder of an organization called FACTS (First Amendment Church of True Science). Its purpose is identical to that of the better-known Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Both organizations claim to be supporters of freedom of religion by keeping the government from ever mentioning God, but both organizations are actually largely populated and led by atheists and agnostics (or practitioners of "religions" such as Wicca and Native American Shamanism). The fact is that they despise all forms of traditional religion, and would just as soon repeal the First Amendment wording protecting the free expression of religion anywhere outside their odd temples of non-worship. In an appearance on Fox's Hannity and Colmes, Newdow declared that "In God We Trust" on currency is comparable to racial segregation and separate drinking fountains for blacks in the segregated South. What the two have to do with each other, nobody, including Newdow himself, could explain.

Newdow has filed multiple lawsuits in his cause. All were rejected, sooner or later, including his suit to forbid George Bush the use of the words "so help me God" spoken at the end of the Presidential oath. He forgot to notice that it is not only not a government endorsement of religion, but isn't even in the actual oath. Each President since Washington has said the words, but they aren't required. He tried it again against President Obama, but changed the petition slightly so that it claimed that the injunction should not be against the President, but against the Chief Justice who administers the oath. That got laughed out of court as well. The federal judge wryly commented that he didn't think he had the authority to issue an order against the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Newdow is not your run of the mill crazy. He is quite an extraordinary crazy. After the first go-round with the school Pledge issue, it was revealed that the daughter wasn't at all offended by saying the Pledge. She just went along with it to avoid further conflict with her father. But it caused so much family friction that his wife divorced him and was granted legal and physical custody of the girl (which is why the Supreme Court found that he had no standing to sue on her behalf, even though that hadn't bothered the Ninth Circuit judges). Newdow oddly claimed that the daughter was conceived when his future wife raped him on a camping trip to Yosemite in 1993. One judge called the accusation "disingenuous" in his ruling. Are you getting a good feel for this guy's thinking?

The three-judge Ninth Circuit Federal Panel split 2-1 on the March 11 ruling against Newdow's petition. Not surprisingly, Judge Stephen Reinhardt (whom I've mentioned many times before as one of the most left-leaning judges on any court) was the lone vote in favor of Newdow. He wrote a 123 page dissent in an attempt to overwhelm the 60 page majority opinion. Reihnardt is not only noted for his left wing views, but is also a champion of gas-baggery. Sticking to the issue (called "distinguishing the case") is not his strong point. In one murder case, a lawyer was heard to say afterwards that Reinhardt had attempted to cite every case of murder since Cain killed Abel. Also, not surprisingly, Reinhardt had written the lengthy majority opinion finding Newdow's argument valid in the prior case. Reinhardt is not a happy camper.

Judge Carlos Bea wrote the majority decision, including wording that had been hinted at in the Supreme Court decision. "The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded." Bea noted that schools do not require students to recite the Pledge to which the words "under God" were added by 1954 federal law. Contextually, the Congress was setting itself against the power of the godless Communist hegemony in Russia and Eastern Europe as well as the quickly emerging Chinese Communist regime.

Never daunted (and apparently never instructed by failure), Newdow has filed a motion for reconsideration by the Panel, and failing that, will appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Says Newdow: "The whole argument that 'under God' wasn't placed in the pledge for religious purposes is bogus. I hope people recognize this [the lawsuit] is not against God or people who believe in God. It's about the government not treating people equally on the basis of their lawful religious views." You know, like racial segregation and separate drinking fountains for blacks.

Newdow is not optimistic about his chances at the Supreme Court. "They don't want to do what's politically unpopular. The Supreme Court will not hear a case that upholds the Pledge of Allegiance. It's very unlikely at least," he said. It would never occur to him that the Supremes might reject the case because it's frivolous, fully-litigated, and contains no valid constitutional arguments which prove the Pledge violates the establishment clause, or in any way amounts to excessive government intrusion in the practice of religion. It's uncertain whether Newdow will go on with the "In God We Trust" currency verbiage case, since the same Panel ruled 3-0 saying the phrase is ceremonial and patriotic, not religious. How Reinhardt explains that inconsistency in his judicial views may never be known, since he didn't dissent. Maybe he was just worn out from his dissent in the other case.