| June 14, 2004—"The Court displayed fascinating judicial contortionism today by finding Article III standing. Yet bending and twisting to create a new standing requirement, it found a way to avoid the merits of the case. While the ruling was correct—dismissing the case and reversing the Ninth Circuit opinion—the basic right for children to say the Pledge of Allegiance remains in jeopardy.
The Ninth Circuit assertion that a student has the right not to hear "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is far-reaching even by the judicial activist standards we have come to expect from them. I hope that America is paying close attention to judicial activism in general and the grave danger it represents to this Republic.
In its holdings, the Ninth Circuit continues its utter disdain and total disrespect for the U.S. Constitution and the fundamental rights and principles it was designed to protect.
Justice Thomas was the clarion voice when he stated plainly, "we granted certiorari in this case to decide whether the Elk Grove Unified School District's Pledge policy violates the Constitution. The answer to that question is 'no.'”
It is too bad that the simple clarity and incontrovertible reason expressed by Justice Thomas escapes the other erudite members of the Court.”
|
