RUSH: This is absolutely amazing. Here we are in the middle of the confirmation hearings for Judge Roberts, and we’re listening to these windbags talk about civil rights and freedom and expanding liberty and all of this rotgut from these people, and what we have, the Pledge of Allegiance was ruled unconstitutional today by a federal judge who granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist — this is Michael Newdow — whose previous attempt to get the Pledge out of public schools was rejected by the US Supreme Court. What happened in that case, I think, if my memory is correct, they tried to get the Pledge thrown out by virtue of the words “under God,” and the Supreme Court rejected it. Now the federal judge in this case — and I still don’t know who it is. We still have just the basic shell of a report now. But this federal judge has granted legal standing to two families represented by an atheist, and the judge is apparently saying he’s wound by what the Ninth Circuit did. Well, he’s not. I don’t understand that. The Ninth Circuit was overturned. Ninth Circuit was overruled. So we’ll have to still sort this out. But anyway the fact that this is happening right in the middle of these confirmation hearings of Judge Roberts; it’s another bag of excrement put out there, and the Democrats, the liberals have just stepped right in it all over again.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
All right, put together some things quickly on this whole Pledge of Allegiance case. The judge we now know: US District Judge Lawrence Carlton, who has said that the Pledge’s reference to “one nation under God” violates school children’s rights to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God. The judge, Lawrence Carlton, “said he was bound by precedent of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals which in 2002 ruled in favor of the Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the Pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools. The Supreme Court threw this case out because Newdow did not have custody of his child and thus had no standing to bring the suit.” So they didn’t deal. We told you at the time. It’s all coming back to me now. We told you at the time they haven’t dealt with this; they just threw his suit out because he didn’t have standing. So what Newdow did was come back with two other families who have custody of their kids who say their kids are offended when “under God” is mentioned in the Pledge in school, and under the decision first handed down by the Ninth Circuit, since standing has now apparently been granted, this judge feels that assess bound to follow the precedent of the Ninth Circuit. So the Washington Post, in June of 2004, reported the story this way: “The Supreme Court ruled today that a careful atheist didn’t have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance, dismissing on procedural grounds a lower court’s ruling in his favor, but sidestepping the broader question of whether the pledge itself is constitutional. The ruling effectively preserved the phrase ‘one nation under God’ that is recited daily, as part of the Pledge of millions of school children across the country.”
So now the case will have to go back to the Supreme Court. If they determine that these two new parents, sets of parents that Newdow dragged out of the woodwork, wherever they’re from, have standing then, you know, the case comes back to life again. The great thing is here we are — I keep emphasizing this — right in the middle of the Roberts confirmation hearings, and there’s going to be another name nominated to replace Sandra Day O’Connor, and I remember what happened in 2002. Remember, that’s a midyear, a midterm election year. The Democrats ran to the microphone faster than the Republicans did to denounce the Ninth Circus on this. They were saying, “Oh, no! We’re going to get beat on values again. Oh, no!” So it will be interesting to see what they do now in this case, because, you know, the People for the American Way, the ACLU, those are some of these special interest groups that will appreciate this ruling and demand the Democrats, you know, take a position on it that these groups think favorable. So this is going to be fascinating to watch here, folks, fascinating to watch this — and of course Roberts they’ll ask, “What do you think about this, judge? The case may come before the court. What about the Constitution?”
“Well, I can’t comment on this case. It may well indeed come before the court. If I’m confirmed I cannot go on the court with an affirmed position already stated or I would have to recuse myself.”
So this may be two bags of excrement that they’ve stepped in here, folks, thanks to this atheist and the Ninth Circuit court of appeals. You just have to love this.
END TRANSCRIPT
