Morgan

Though there are good reasons for the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th district's ruling, the most obvious reason being that Dr. Newdow has no legal standing in the courts to file a case on his daughter's behalf, sometimes it's luck, or lack thereof, that has a hand in final outcomes. To whit: "...Justice Antonin Scalia said he will not participate, raising the possibility that the court could deadlock 4-4. That would let stand the 9th Circuit's ruling that rejected the Pledge. Newdow had called on Scalia to step aside after the justice appeared to criticize the 9th Circuit's ruling in a speech..." http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...us-pledge_x.htm "Supreme Court to consider Pledge" By Richard Willing, USA TODAY, October 14, 2003

Black Dog, I hope the 9th district court's pledge decision is overturned for a number of reasons. 1. The case was filed under false pretense. Dr. Michael Newdow claimed he had legal standing to file a brief on behalf of his daughter, saying his 8 year old's constitutional rights to religious freedom were being violated with the phrase "under God" in the pledge, that she "was injured" even having to listen to her state-employed teacher and other students in her public school say "under God" though she herself was not being forced to say the phrase, that the state was interfering with his parental responsibility of directing his daughter's religious training, that the Establishment clause of the constitution ensured a separation between government and religion. In fact, Dr. Newdow does not/did not have legal custody of his daughter. The 9th district should not have heard Newdow's claim in the first place, had they taken the time to verify Newsow's legal standing to represent his daughter. As it turns out, not only did Newdow not have legal standing before the court, but he also misrepresented his daughter's true sentiments about the "under God" phrase. Newdow's daughter is a church going Christian who enjoys saying "under God" in the pledge and says she will continue to say that phrase despite the 9th district's ruling. Her mother, Sandra Banning, who never married Newdow, is a Sunday school teacher. Furthermore, Ms. Banning has a copy of a court order awarding her sole custody of the child. The order also gave her the right to make decisions regarding the girl’s education. Ms. Banning has filed a brief on the little girl's behalf with the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th district's decision. Ken Starr has agreed to represent Ms. Banning and her daughter pro bono. 2. The case was originally heard by a 3 judge panel and the decision was rendered on a 2-1 vote in Newdow's favour. But one of the 2 judges who sided with Newdow, Judge Reinhardt, should have recused himself, IMHO, and appointed another judge to take his place, who would not bring personal bias to the case. Judge Reinhardt's wife is Ramona Ripston, the executive director of the ACLU in Southern California, and the ACLU is the main provocateur against Christian symbolism in America. 3. Newdow is trying to impose his personal belief system on a nation of 300 Million people. In 2 polls a vast majority of Americans from all walks of life and representing a variety of religious/secular belief systems want the pledge to stay the way it is, with "under God" included. An ABC News/Washington Post Poll, conducted June 26-30, 2002, showed 89% support for the pledge to have "under God" and a similar percentage of 87% was confirmed by a Newsweek poll, conducted June 27-28, 2002. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm. FYI, Newdow also plans to challenge the use of "In God We Trust" on currency and the inclusion of prayers at presidential inaugurations, according to the Times. This guy wants to tear down traditions/symbols held dear to the hearts of the vast majority of Americans, and to my mind, Newdow personifies the phrase "tyranny of the minority." Judge Ferdinand Fernandez identified Newdow's single-minded personal agenda when he wrote in his dissenting opinion, being one of the three 9th district court judge panel, "Upon Newdow’s theory of our Constitution, accepted by my colleagues ... we will soon find ourselves prohibited from using our album of patriotic songs in many public settings. 'God Bless America' and 'America The Beautiful' will be gone for sure, and while use of the first and second stanzas of the Star Spangled Banner will still be permissible, we will be precluded from straying into the third. And currency beware!" 4. I don't think the "under God" reference in the pledge has anything to do with the Establishment clause, which was written into the constitution to prevent government from establishing a new religion. Rather, I agree with U.S. Solicitor General Olson, who says that the "under God "phrase in the pledge merely acknowledges the undeniable fact that “the Nation was founded by individuals who believed in God.” Much of the Newdow case's background details included in my post were from the following articles: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/22/...ain564394.shtml. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=28160 http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=28213 http://www.mediaresearch.org/bozellcolumns...col20020709.asp

Jacques Chirac's follow-up action was rather unfortunate, to say the least. In light of the tepid response from Chirac to Mahathir's speech, it's no wonder that cases of anti-Semitism are on the rise in France. http://news.yahoo.com/?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20...lamic_summit_16 At their own summit in Brussels, Belgium, European Union leaders had drafted a harshly worded statement condemning Mahathir's remarks, but French President Jacques Chirac blocked the wording from becoming a part of a final declaration. The text had said Mahathir's "unacceptable comments hinder all our efforts to further interethnic and religious harmony, and have no place in a decent world. Such false and anti-Semitic remarks are as offensive to Muslims as they are to others." Chirac, however, said there was no place in an EU declaration for such a text. EU leaders compromised by having Italian Premier Silvio Berlusconi criticize Mahathir at his closing news conference. Officials said the draft text also would be issued as a separate statement and would be posted on the EU presidency Web site.

BlackDog, The Supreme Court judges frequently think Judge Alfred Goodwin and his 9th District activist judicial colleagues make wacky rulings that need to be overturned. The 9th District Court is the most frequently reversed federal court in the USA. Hopefully, the pledge decision will end up being yet another reversed judgment. http://www.centerforindividualfreedom.org/...9th_circuit.htm. "U.S. Supreme Court Keeps a Watchful Eye on the 9th Circuit" Long considered the federal court breeding ground for judicial activism, the 9th Circuit has been the federal appeals court most often overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years. Notably, the 9th Circuit accounted for both 30 percent of the cases (24 of 80) and 30 percent of the reversals (18 of 59) the Supreme Court decided by full written opinions this term. In addition, the 9th Circuit was responsible for more than a third (35%, or 8 of 23) of the High Court's unanimous reversals that were issued by published opinions. Thus, on the whole, the 9th Circuit's rulings accounted for more reversals this past term than all the state courts across the country combined and represented nearly half of the overturned judgments (45%) of the federal appellate courts. ...in pursuing political and policy preferences at the expense of established precedent and textual commands, some 9th Circuit judges seem to invite review and reversal by the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't understand your outrage. Walters was criticizing Chretien, not Canadians. And I believe he had every reason to do so. First off, Chretien's ill conceived comment was inappropriate for a head of state. Chretien is supposed to be a role model while occupying the PMO and musing aloud about what drugs he's going to try in retirement was insulting to the office he holds. Chretien's stubborn insistence on legalizing pot inspite of possible negative repercutions to Canadian society as a whole as well as adding strain to relations with our biggest trading partner is selfish. All Chretien is thinking about is leaving a "legacy" not what is best for the country long term. Regardless of how harmless you personally believe that pot is, others don't share your view. Recent research studies indicate a link between pot use and schizophrenia and depression and that young people are particularly vulnerable. http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/510418.html. As well, other studies have raised concerns about brain cell damage with long term use. It's no secret that many health workers and drug counselors believe pot can be labeled a gateway drug. If something is not proven to be safe for recreational use by the general public, why legalize it? We already have cigarettes and alcohol causing social and health problems in society, why make available another risk factor? Those who currently use pot behind closed doors can continue to do so. Like Walters says, laws are lax in Canada so no cops have been breaking down doors on a regular basis to bust anyone for smoking pot.

If you're going to find fault with Bush's spending habits, you might choose to focus on glaring waste like his domestic vote pandering to seniors re:the Pharmacare program that has a price tag of $400 Billion though seniors represent the wealthiest segment of American society or his feel-good international photo op involving a gift of $15 Billion to fight AIDS in Africa, most of which will fill the pockets of local dictators. As for the claim that 2.7 million jobs were lost since Bush took office, that number is questionable. According to a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, "The Bureau of Labor statistics asks people if they are employed every month, and their answer has been they have 1.2 million more jobs than they had at the start of this year." http://www.cato.org/research/articles/reyn...lds-031005.html and http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-23-03.html Many developed nations are having problems with unemployment rates and budget deficits and they're not even fighting a war or beefing up national security as a result of a massive terrorist attack like the USA. France's deficit is 4.0% and economists project France's deficit may reach 5% next year, with unemployment currently reported as running at 9.6%. Germany is not far behind with a 3.8% deficit and 10.4% unemployment rate. Theirs are the top 2 economies in the EU. So Bush is not doing badly when one compares him to his counterparts, who faced less daunting crises. Bush's proposed $20 Billion grant to Iraq is a relatively small amount considering that the USA has a $10.8 Trillion economy. And ultimately this $20 Billion good faith investment in Iraq may contribute to enhanced national security for America. A politically stable, economically flourishing, US-friendly Iraq would help in the fight against miltant Islam in the Middle East. Bush also wants France, Germany, and Russia to forgive most of the outstanding loans that they gave to Saddam, and for them to do that, he needs to show these countries that the US is putting $ in the pot . As for the California recall being the product of a right wing conspiracy, Grey Davis tried to spin that lie, but no one believed him. Grey Davis caused his own demise. He mishandled the finances of an affluent state so badly that he even lost the support of Democrat voters. Revenue had grown 28 percent in California, but Davis's wasteful overspending grew 36 percent. Just prior to being turfed from office, a field poll in August showed that over 70% of Californians disapproved of Davis's job performance. Even Nixon was more popular prior to his resignation. And more importantly, a USA/CNN poll in August showed that 40% of registered Democrat voters supported the recall of Grey Davis. Exit polls on election night ultimately confirmed that Davis had lost the support of his bedrock Democrat voters. Davis's incompetence was too much even for former loyal Democrats to forgive.

Norway was recently named the best country to live in by the UN for the 3rd year in a row. So one might assume that Norway is doing a few things right for its citizens. Interestingly enough, Norway will be implementing a new asylum policy that seems quite unusual for a socialist, pro UN country. Should Canada take pointers from Norway? Comments? http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/ar...rticleID=648762 "Chartered flights to remove asylum seekers" -Norwegian authorities plan to charter planes in order to fly asylum seekers with groundless applications out of the country quickly and efficiently. After a rejected application refugees should be out of Norway in 72 hours. -"We believe this sends a strong message abroad that we mean business. But this is also a way of strengthening the institution of asylum by filtering out those who have a need for help and who are oppressed on the one hand, and those who come here to have a better life on the other," said Kristin Oermen Johnsen at the Department of Local Government. -"We can't take in everyone who wants a better life. That's just the way it is," she said. -The Department has already warned a 48-hour turnaround for rejecting groundless asylum applications. The new plan sets a 72-hour deadline for transport out after rejection, and authorities want effective traffic out in place by the beginning of 2004.

The major problem I see with studies thusfar that have demonstrated a possible biology link to homosexuality is that most of the studies have used a small number of participants and that the outcomes have not been reproduced by subsequent independent studies. For example, the blink response research study conducted by Dr.Rahman, as reported in the October issue of The Economist, involved a small group of 59 homosexual, lesbian, and heterosexual participants. http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory...sp?docID=515387. I think in the future it is necessary for researchers to study larger numbers of homosexuals, lesbians, and controls for the outcomes of the research to gain scientific legitimacy and relevance.

Re: the phrase "pc pampered' I meant pampered by "politically correct" thinking.. Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean Progressive Conservative. Yes, I'm sure the gay couple voted liberal.

I agree with your take on this ridiculous situation, KrustyKidd. That these 2 self-important twits think it is they who were wronged is laughable. They have no insight whatsoever that they showed no respect for the laws of a sovereign nation they want to visit as guests. I hope the US Customs Dept. digs in and does not concede an inch to these Canadian pc-pampered cry babies.

The reason that specific minorities like blacks and Hispanics would not get into good public or private colleges, were it not for affirmative action, has nothing to do with racism. They would not get accepted because of their poor academic scores which would preclude acceptance at solid academic institutions. End of story. And even with affirmative action, blacks and Hispanics have the highest rate of non-completion of their college degree programs, because they are unable to keep up with other students, who were accepted on merit. What does that tell you? And where does it say all people should go to college? Where is it proven that all students have equal intellectual abilities suited for rigorous academic pursuits? Maybe some high school students , regardless of their colour or ethnicity or gender, would be better served by attending a post secondary trade school? And here's another fact to consider...through all the years of major government spending on education and focusing on "disadvantaged" students, along with with busing and with the establishment of magnet schools in poor neighbourhoods, etc., the SAT scores for blacks and Hispanics have decreased, not increased, over the years. Hello, Democrat social engineers! It's not racism that's causing the dismal SAT scores. It's the high percentage of single parenting in both racial groups. TThat's the single greatest predictor of academic success or failure for children-coming from a stable nuclear Mommy and Daddy home. Also, affirmative action is discriminatory to other minority groups[not just Caucasian boys] who are successful without social engineering. Chinese and Japanese, regardless of gender, have to fight against "quota maximums" in the U of California college system. They're just too darn successful for liberal tastes, I guess. With regards to giving preferential treatment to females, this society is in serious trouble because of the shameful way males are being treated in school. Fewer boys are going to college because of being discouraged through elementary, junior high, and high school by feminist minded educators. So how is society any farther ahead with these misguided social engineering schemes, if affirmative action discriminates against certain minority groups and penalizes the male gender?