The collection of concurrences on the merits are
quite interesting. The Chief's opinion adopts the SG's argument --
darn-near-preposterous, IMHO (and that of Justice Thomas!) -- that the
Pledge is OK in schools because "under God" is "not endorsement of any
religion," but instead "a simple recognition of the fact
[that] '[f]rom the time of our earliest history our peoples and
our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that
our Nation was founded on a fundamental belief in
God.'"
Justice O'Connor joins the Chief's opinion, but
writes separately to suggest that the Pledge in schools is ok only because
of a confluence of "four factors" that will virtually never again appear in
combination in any other case. This result derives directly from pages
24-29 of the amicus brief that Doug Laycock wrote: http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/newdow.laycock.pdf.
Justice Thomas concludes -- correctly, in my view,
see http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/Newdow%20Final%20Brief.pdf --
that if Lee v. Weisman was correctly decided, then public schools may
not lead students in daily recitation of the words "under God." Thomas,
however, would overrule Lee.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marty Lederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "David Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:42 AM
Subject: Links to Newdow
Opinions
> here:
>
> http://supct.law.cornell.edu:8080/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html
>
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
