"An atheist who tried to remove 'under God' from the Pledge of Allegiance lost a bid Friday to bar the saying of a Christian prayer at President Bush's inauguration.
U.S. District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow's claim should be denied because he already had filed and lost a similar lawsuit at a federal appeals court in California last year. Bates also said Newdow had no legal standing to pursue his claim. Even if Newdow could show he had suffered injury because he was offended in hearing the prayer, Bates said the court did not have authority to stop the president from inviting clergy to give a religious prayer at the ceremony.
'The court's grave concerns about its power to issue an injunction against the president, which is the only method of redressing Newdow's alleged injuries, places in peril Newdow's standing to bring this action,' Bates wrote in his 50-page opinion.
Newdow argued that saying a Christian prayer at the Jan. 20 ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs.
Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that prayers have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and that Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation was a personal choice the court had no power to prevent.
Newdow gained widespread publicity two years ago after winning his pledge case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in San Francisco, which ruled that public schools violated the separation of church and state by having students mention God.
The Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-age daughter, on whose behalf he sued. Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this month, naming eight other parents and children.
Newdow is both an emergency room physician and a lawyer and has represented himself in both legal actions. "
Good! This Newdow character is a nut. His claims are frivolous and superficial.
If he seriously and genuinely cared about the doctrine of the separation of church and state, he'd be filing suit against the $1 billion Bush (via Executive Order and no legislative oversight) gave to Christian social services organizations in 2003, and to stop the additional $3.7 billion Bush earmarked in Feb 2004 for additional cash grants to churches and faith-based groups.
Have you noticed Newdow only files his silly, nonsensical high-profile claims against symbolic public use of Christian words, and each time his efforts only serve to recoalesce Bush's fundamentalist Christian voter base? His claims are always dismissed, and they always result in the far-right religious rallying around their persecuted leader, George Bush? Persecuted because of his perceived faithfulness as an obedient follower of God?
Have you noticed that he's never filed suit against any of the many serious church/state violations of the Bush administration...the ones with legal merit and that could result in forced, real changes?
Given the extraordinary cleverness of the Karl Rove propaganda machine, the slightly paranoid thought occurs to me.......could they be paying Newdow to file these stupid, exquisitely well-timed claims?