"They" took their time. Did you?
By beekay (Brandon Haught)
The legal process often trudges slowly along like a snail oozing uphill in the baking sun. Everyone involved in a case commits a lot of time, effort, thought, and research. Don't let Judge Judy or the People's Court fool you. Seeing a television judge about your neighbor's dog running across your lawn might only take thirty minutes - including time for
commercials. But if you want to see results concerning something a bit weightier, you better be prepared to wait.
The decision the Ninth Circuit Court arrived at concerning the recent Pledge of Allegiance case took much longer than a day, or a week, or even a month. The case was argued and submitted on March 14. The court's opinion was finally filed June 26. Those three months don't include all the other legal proceedings the plaintiff, Mr. Newdow, went through before March 14.
Unfortunately, it only takes a few minutes for the general public to read a headline and pass judgment. As a result, Judge Goodwin, who wrote the decision for the majority, and Newdow are now among the most hated men in America. According to the Los Angeles Times, Newdow's phone answering machine is full of comments like, "You atheist bastard. If you don't like the way this country is, take yourself and your family and get the hell out." And, "I hope you and your daughter go to hell. People are going to get even. I hope you suffer." The court ruled in Newdow's favor, but he has been given a criminal sentence of obscene comments and death threats anyway by many of his fellow Americans.
I first heard the news from a radio DJ. He angrily reported the headline-only version of the story and then plowed into a tirade about how "they" can try to take away his right to say the pledge but "they" can never take away his right to play songs like this, and he proceeded to play "God Bless the U.S.A." by Lee Greenwood. I was immediately confused and curious. I searched for more details on the internet and in the news. Once I finally pieced together the whole story, I couldn't believe how far off the mark that DJ had been. His right to say the pledge was never in jeopardy; his rights were never even an issue. How many other people had heard his irresponsible ranting and without looking any further formed an immediate negative opinion of the case? That's a scary thought.
Our U.S. Senators also passed a hasty judgment when they unanimously passed a resolution condemning the ruling within a mere few hours of the case's results being announced. Rather than dig deeper into the issue, these men and women did a patriotic song and dance for the cameras, literally. I am happy to see these government officials standing by their country and even their religious beliefs, but I am sorely disappointed that not a single Senator had the common sense to stop and give the ruling any serious thought. Rather than let reason prevail, they poured gasoline on an issue already burning out of control. The president also took a moment out of his busy schedule to pronounce the ruling "ridiculous." Did Bush spend even a fraction of the amount of time considering the case that the circuit court judges did?
The majority of the media also took the ball and ran with it. The reporting has mostly been about emotions. Very little time is given to legal reasoning and the actual law behind the decision. I have yet to see a news report featuring anyone discussing the legal and constitutional reasons why "under god" should remain in the pledge. The media marches out legal experts by the dozens predicting the ruling will be overturned. However, the analysts have yet to say they think the "under God" part of the pledge is really constitutional; they're only predicting what will happen. How likely is it that uncritical listeners will misinterpret what is being said?
I urge anyone interested in this case to take the time to do some reading and research. The official court opinion can be found at FindLaw.com. The document is well-written, easy to read and contains both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. Then brush up on your constitution knowledge, specifically the Bill of Rights, at The National Archives and Records Administration.
Read or listen to interviews with Newdow, and read or listen to multiple news stories while being critical of biased or sensational reporting. I realize I may be insulting some people's intelligence, but the reactions I've recently witnessed demonstrate that this guidance is sorely needed.
If you are passionate about your opinion after doing your research, then by all means argue your case from the strong platform of educated reason. The concept of democracy and free speech rests on the argument and not on the opinion. Making a swift judgment based on little more than what an irate radio DJ says is dangerous. Make your own decisions based on facts, not emotional opinions.
By beekay (Brandon Haught)
| ||
| ||
| ||
|
The decision the Ninth Circuit Court arrived at concerning the recent Pledge of Allegiance case took much longer than a day, or a week, or even a month. The case was argued and submitted on March 14. The court's opinion was finally filed June 26. Those three months don't include all the other legal proceedings the plaintiff, Mr. Newdow, went through before March 14.
Unfortunately, it only takes a few minutes for the general public to read a headline and pass judgment. As a result, Judge Goodwin, who wrote the decision for the majority, and Newdow are now among the most hated men in America. According to the Los Angeles Times, Newdow's phone answering machine is full of comments like, "You atheist bastard. If you don't like the way this country is, take yourself and your family and get the hell out." And, "I hope you and your daughter go to hell. People are going to get even. I hope you suffer." The court ruled in Newdow's favor, but he has been given a criminal sentence of obscene comments and death threats anyway by many of his fellow Americans.
I first heard the news from a radio DJ. He angrily reported the headline-only version of the story and then plowed into a tirade about how "they" can try to take away his right to say the pledge but "they" can never take away his right to play songs like this, and he proceeded to play "God Bless the U.S.A." by Lee Greenwood. I was immediately confused and curious. I searched for more details on the internet and in the news. Once I finally pieced together the whole story, I couldn't believe how far off the mark that DJ had been. His right to say the pledge was never in jeopardy; his rights were never even an issue. How many other people had heard his irresponsible ranting and without looking any further formed an immediate negative opinion of the case? That's a scary thought.
Our U.S. Senators also passed a hasty judgment when they unanimously passed a resolution condemning the ruling within a mere few hours of the case's results being announced. Rather than dig deeper into the issue, these men and women did a patriotic song and dance for the cameras, literally. I am happy to see these government officials standing by their country and even their religious beliefs, but I am sorely disappointed that not a single Senator had the common sense to stop and give the ruling any serious thought. Rather than let reason prevail, they poured gasoline on an issue already burning out of control. The president also took a moment out of his busy schedule to pronounce the ruling "ridiculous." Did Bush spend even a fraction of the amount of time considering the case that the circuit court judges did?
The majority of the media also took the ball and ran with it. The reporting has mostly been about emotions. Very little time is given to legal reasoning and the actual law behind the decision. I have yet to see a news report featuring anyone discussing the legal and constitutional reasons why "under god" should remain in the pledge. The media marches out legal experts by the dozens predicting the ruling will be overturned. However, the analysts have yet to say they think the "under God" part of the pledge is really constitutional; they're only predicting what will happen. How likely is it that uncritical listeners will misinterpret what is being said?
I urge anyone interested in this case to take the time to do some reading and research. The official court opinion can be found at FindLaw.com. The document is well-written, easy to read and contains both the majority opinion and the dissenting opinion. Then brush up on your constitution knowledge, specifically the Bill of Rights, at The National Archives and Records Administration.
Read or listen to interviews with Newdow, and read or listen to multiple news stories while being critical of biased or sensational reporting. I realize I may be insulting some people's intelligence, but the reactions I've recently witnessed demonstrate that this guidance is sorely needed.
If you are passionate about your opinion after doing your research, then by all means argue your case from the strong platform of educated reason. The concept of democracy and free speech rests on the argument and not on the opinion. Making a swift judgment based on little more than what an irate radio DJ says is dangerous. Make your own decisions based on facts, not emotional opinions.
July 01, 2002