I think the Supremes will uphold, "Under God" in the Pledge. They don't want to get out of step with the country on this one. My Guess? 6-3. "Volokh"
_____________________________________
[Eugene Volokh, 3:08 PM]
Scalia statement about the Pledge case: I'm not sure whether this is the only statement that Scalia has made about the Pledge case, but it's the one that I found, from an AP story:
Courts have gone too far to keep religion out of public schools and other forums, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says.
Although the Constitution says the government cannot "establish" or promote religion, the framers did not intend for God to be stripped from public life, Scalia said Sunday at a religious ceremony.
He contended that the Constitution has been misinterpreted both by the Supreme Court and lower courts. As an example, he pointed to a federal appeals court ruling in California barring students from reciting the Pledge of Allegiance with the phrase "one nation under God." . . .
Scalia, the main speaker at an event for Religious Freedom Day, said past rulings by the Supreme Court gave the judges in the pledge case "some plausible support" to reach that conclusion.
However, he said, such decisions should be made legislatively, not by courts.
The rally-style event about 50 miles south of Washington drew a lone protester, who silently held a sign promoting the separation of church and state.
"The sign back here which says 'Get religion out of government' can be imposed on the whole country," Scalia said. "I have no problem with that philosophy being adopted democratically. If the gentleman holding the sign would persuade all of you of that, then we could eliminate 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance. That could be democratically done." . . .
This, then, might be the reason for Justice Scalia's recusal, though I stress again that I'm not sure whether the rules mandate recusal in such a situation, or whether they leave a considerable amount of flexibility for the judge.
volokh.com |
