She is not, and never has been, very much like Newdow. Rehnquist as the justices sized up Newdow. O'Connor sat just to the left of Chief Justice William H. They enter theatrically - cued by a high-pitched whistle, followed by a single rap of the marshal's gavel - through slits in a gigantic red velvet curtain, then climb into high-backed leather chairs behind an imposing mahogany bench. Only the nine justices occupy a position of exaltation. The grandiose space sends a silent message to every member of the audience: The law soars above us all. Hers is a familiar and authoritative voice in the courtroom, with its 44-foot-high ceiling, two dozen massive columns of Italian marble and 280-square-foot friezes depicting lawgivers from Hammurabi to Moses to Solon. "That was a prayer," O'Connor pointed out. "And no child was required to be at the graduation Lee v. "Now, wait a minute," she said, "we have other authorities saying that no child is required to say the pledge." Weisman, she is coerced," Newdow said, citing a 1992 case in which a five-vote majority of the court ruled that an officially sponsored invocation at a public high school graduation was unconstitutional because it would make nonreligious students feel coerced to join in. "It's all right for her to have the coins and use them and read them, but it's the problem of being asked to say the pledge, which she doesn't have to say?" O'Connor countered. "If my child was asked to stand up and say, 'In God We Trust,' every morning in the public schools led by her teachers. "And you have no problem with 'In God We Trust' on the coins, and that sort of thing?" she inquired. Breyer suggested that the God of the pledge is, perhaps, "a very comprehensive supreme being," too generic to justify Newdow's objection, the atheist shot back, "I don't think I can include 'under God' to mean no God." Newdow, an intense, wiry man with close-cropped gray hair who holds both medical and law degrees, was allowed to argue his case personally - and, on that March day, he was doing a surprisingly nimble job. But, to Newdow, the fact that his child must choose between listening to a state-drafted affirmation of God's existence or risking ostracism by excusing herself is a violation of the Constitution's ban on officially established religion. The Supreme Court decided more than 60 years ago that no child can be forced to recite the pledge. His name is Michael Newdow, and he believes that the phrase "under God" does not belong in the Pledge of Allegiance, which his daughter and other children are asked to recite in public school each morning. Sandra Day O'Connor's voice betrayed just a trace of exasperation as she addressed the atheist pleading his case before the Supreme Court of the United States.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |