While scrolling through the stories on FARK, which I have not had much time to keep up with over the past two days, I noticed a couple of stories that caught my interest.
The first noteworthy story is from April 30th: It seems the Bush Administration is asking the US Supreme Court to overturn the 9th Circuit's opinion that it is unconstitutional to recite the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools. The decision is old news, but the Administration's joining in this matter is a recent development.
Now, did not the boy who was supposedly the plaintiff in the suit that started this situation announce that he really had no problem with saying the Pledge in school? Of course, his father is an attorney, so is likely using this case solely to make a name for himself. What a crock. And, if I remember the story right, the objection to saying the pledge is because they are atheists? Why is it always the atheists who cause the commotion about anything the government does concerning religion? I might understand if it was a Muslim, but surely no one would mind if they substituted Allah when the pledge was said, after all, Allah is God, one and the same, just a different word or name for the same deity. Hindus and Buddhists might have reason to complain, but they seldom cause a stir. In fact, it is likely due to their respective religions that they are so tolerant of others' beliefs. I do not dislike atheists. I just cannot understand why they cause such a stir over the mention of the name of a deity they have no belief in anyway. Folks, pretend it is a word that means nothing, just a word that happens to be in the script. I don't know all the words to "Louie, Louie," nor what most of that song means or has to do with anything, but I usually sing along when everyone else does. It causes me no pain. It is not like you are going to Hell because you said the word "God," is it?
"The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was so far out of bounds that the Supreme Court could simply strike down the ruling without even hearing arguments on the case, Olson [Solicitor General Theodore Olson] suggested."
I do hope the Court does overturn the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' decision. It is bad enough that Disney is thinking of changing Texas history, I surely would hate to think that during all those years I was in school, I was violating the U.S. Constitution because I was saying the "Pledge" with all my heart.
UPDATE: ""She says the pledge, oh yes," David Gordon, superintendent for the Elk Grove school district, said about the daughter. "Her mother is on record as supporting the pledge." CNN.com - May. 2, 2003
The second noteworthy story is from April 29th: This appears to be a case of first impression, and to those of you who are not legally trained, that means courts have never considered the primary issues previously. The story involves DNA and the statute of limitations. Most crimes, except murder, in most states have a legal deadline in which cases must be brought forth, otherwise, the case is barred. The concept behind this rule is that a person should not be subjected to the cruelty of continually looking over one's shoulder for past transgressions. Also, it affords a defendant a fairer opportunity to defend against the charges if it is brought forth with reasonable haste, so that all the evidence beneficial to the defense has not completely disappeared. It is thought to be a matter of fundamental fairness to require prosecution to be brought within a reasonable period of time. There is generally no statute of limitations for murder, however, because a person should never be able to get away with murder. So, the statute of limitations for sexual assault is six years in Michigan. The prosecutors had some DNA, but were not sure of the owner of the DNA. The statute of limitations was running out, so the prosecutors filed the case against the DNA. The 1st Court of Appeals stated that the prosecutors had properly filed a case prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations. "The appeals court ruled that the prosecutors had acted before the statute of limitations expired; even if they hadn't, the opinion stated, sexual assault prosecutions are important enough to allow them to proceed after the statute expires if the state has an unidentified offender's DNA." Look for this one to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Posted by Tiger at May 3, 2003 11:49 PM | TrackBack