Get Your Pledge On

March 26, 2004

I'm a bit behind, but here are some of the better first-hand reports on the oral arguments before the Supreme Court in Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow (the pledge of allegiance case):

Dahlia Lithwick: One Nation, Under Hallmark, Indivisible

But then everything about oral argument today in Elk Grove United School District v. Newdow is astonishing. Michael Newdow—the atheist challenging the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the pledge—shatters every one of the inviolate rules of Supreme Court advocacy: The doctor-slash-lawyer represents himself in a performance both passionate and personal. Never having argued a case at the high court, Newdow should have been a sloppy, overzealous mess. But this reviewer gives him five stars. He may still lose this appeal, but he absolutely won the day.

In the NY Times, Linda Greenhouse reports: Atheist Presents Case for Taking God From Pledge

Dr. Newdow, a nonpracticing lawyer who makes his living as an emergency room doctor, may not win his case. In fact, justices across the ideological spectrum appeared to be searching for reasons he should lose, either on jurisdictional grounds or on the merits. But no one who managed to get a seat in the courtroom is likely ever to forget his spell-binding performance.

Crescat's Amanda Butler waited in line to watch the oral arguments:

Breyer doubts that there's harm. Ginsburg worries about the slippery slope of singing God Bless America and minting In God We Trust (in the dissent to the 9th circuit opinion, the judge worries that banning "under God" will mean we'll also have to quit singing the fourth verse of the Star-Spangled Banner. quit?). Souter understands the injury that Newdow feels. Who knows what Thomas thinks, and Scalia was out. Kennedy is questioning the standing issue. Stevens and O'Connor and Rehnquist... eh? O'Connor's more comfortable than most with the maze of current jurisprudence, but she might also be comfortable to adding something else in there. I vaguely call it that they'll uphold the constitutionality of the Pledge.

Eric at SCOTUSBlog also was at the oral argument: More on Newdow

Lee v. Weisman was the focal point of Newdow’s presentation. He wanted the justices to see this case as an application of the coercion test that Lee had announced in the context of prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. The justices, however, didn’t seem inclined to recognize the applicability of that test where actual prayer is not involved. Newdow therefore argued that the Pledge, while not a prayer, is very similar to one.

And, of course, the place to get your complete fix of Newdow-related links and reports is How Appealing