The Pledge_ A History of the Pledge of Allegiance - Jeffrey Owen Jones [75]
Three justices dissented for different reasons and each wrote their own opinion. Each, however, believed that the phrase “under God” was Constitutional.
Reactions to the decision were, of course, split between the two competing camps.
Newdow and his supporters were especially outraged with the Court’s conclusion that he had no right to raise a question about how his child was treated in school. “I’m a father,” said Newdow, “and I have a right to make decisions for my child. I wonder, if she were being hit in the head with a 2-by-4 in school, would the Court also say I have no right to object? It just doesn’t make sense.”
Supporters of an unchanged Pledge were relieved to have dodged a bullet, but also disappointed that the matter was not settled definitively. As a Boston Herald columnist put it, “As victories go, it was a shallow one, but at least the U.S. Supreme Court reached the right conclusion in telling Michael Newdow . . . to take a hike.”
As a result of the Supreme Court’s action, the previous ruling in the Ninth Circuit court was reversed as a procedural matter, meaning that “under God” remained in the Pledge in all the states in the Ninth Circuit.
Newdow himself proclaimed that there were “fellow atheists standing in the wings.” And indeed, following Newdow’s defeat, other groups and individuals have attempted to bring the same issue before the court. They have targeted school districts within the purview of the U.S. Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. By focusing on this geographic area, the strategy is, of course, that if the case gets to the Appeals Court level that arguments against the Pledge will receive the same positive reaction that was expressed in the majority decision in the Newdow case that pressed the review on up to the Supreme Court. That majority decision said, in part: “A profession that we are a nation ‘under God’ is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation ‘under Jesus,’ a nation ‘under Vishnu,’ a nation ‘under Zeus,’ or a nation ‘under no god,’ because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion.”
Clearly the Supreme Court has not been in any mood to make such a similar declaration. But that doesn’t mean that it wouldn’t at some time in the future. Those opposing the wording of the Pledge know this. They realize the only way to hit at the right moment is to keep the issue alive and circulating through the court system.
At the same time, politicians, gazing on Pledge popularity polls among voters, are already armed with legislative weapons to protect the Pledge as it stands. While no specific Constitutional amendment action has gotten very far, a congressional bill dubbed the Pledge Protection Act of 2005 sought to limit the powers of federal courts on any issue dealing with changes to the Pledge. This bill, as written, would prohibit federal courts, other than territorial courts, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, from hearing or deciding cases questioning interpretation or Constitutional validity of the Pledge. In addition, it prohibits the Supreme Court from accepting appeals from any court on the issue. The legality of this act itself was questioned since Article 3 of the Constitution specifically ensures that federal judges are insulated from the political pressures governing members of the other two branches of government—legislative and executive. Ignoring that, however, the bill passed in Congress by a vote of 260 to 167. It was sent on