dictionary

Pledge ruling not popular, to say the least

Reactions: 'Just nuts,' 'political correctness run amok'

Students at a school in Los Angeles' San Fernando Valley recite the Pledge of Allegiance in this October 2001 file photo.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- The court decision has been made, but it's not a popular one. The majority of lawmakers and people on the street who have offered their opinion since Wednesday's ruling say they like the United States Pledge of Allegiance just the way it is.

Most of those heard from say they're displeased -- sometimes downright angry -- about a federal ruling that deems the pledge unconstitutional.

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is an unconstitutional "endorsement of religion" because of the addition of the phrase "under God" in 1954 by Congress.

Meanwhile, in another hotly debated church-and-state issue, the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the use of taxpayer-funded vouchers to pay for students to attend religious school, saying the practice did not violate the constitutional prohibition against state establishment of religion. (Full story)

In the Pledge case, A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in California voted 2-1 that it was unconstitutional. If allowed to stand, the ruling would apply to schools in the nine states covered by the 9th Circuit. (Analyst on whether the decision can stand)

The court took up the case after the U.S. District Court in Sacramento dismissed the lawsuit filed by Michael Newdow, a Sacramento physician with a law degree who represented himself.

Pledge of Allegiance I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.  CNN NewsPass Video    •  Senate pledges allegiance   •  Man behind landmark pledge ruling   •  Pledge unconstitutional in school   •  Congress denounces Pledge ruling  MORE STORIES   •  Senators call Pledge decision 'stupid'   •  Republicans seize on Pledge decision   •  High Court may be needed in Pledge dispute   •  Court opinions and reaction to the ruling  RESOURCES   •  CNN Access: Toobin: Pledge ruling likely 'dead on arrival'   •  CNN Access: Litigant explains why he brought Pledge suit   •  History of the Pledge   •  Read the court decision: Newdow v. U.S. Congress, et al. (FindLaw) (PDF)   •  Judges in Pledge of Allegiance decision   LEGAL RESOURCES Latest Legal News Law Library FindLaw Consumer Center Select a topicBankruptcyDiscriminationDivorceEstate PlanningLandlord-TenantPersonal InjuryTaxes

"Our founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. This is the worst kind of political correctness run amok," said Sen. Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri. "What's next? Will the courts now strip 'so help me God' from the pledge taken by new presidents?"

What does President Bush think about the ruling? He had one word for it on Wednesday: "Ridiculous."

Speaking Thursday at the G-8 summit in Canada, Bush said the ruling was "out of step with the history and traditions of America," and said it highlighted the need for "common sense judges that understand that our rights are derived from God."

Typical of the anger expressed on both sides of the aisle, Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, South Dakotan Democrat, weighed in with, "Just nuts." (Full story)

Wednesday, House members gathered on the Capitol steps and recited the Pledge of Allegiance in a show of support. (GOP to blame Democrats)

"The view of the White House is that this was a wrong decision, and the Department of Justice is now evaluating how to seek redress," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said. (More reactions to ruling) Options include asking the full 9th Circuit to reconsider the case or taking the matter directly to the Supreme Court of the United States, according to The Washington Post.

Legal reasoning cited

Citing a concurring opinion in a Supreme Court decision, the 9th Circuit said: "The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community."

The court said the 1954 insertion of "under God" was made "to recognize a Supreme Being" and advance religion at a time "when the government was publicly inveighing against atheistic communism" -- a fact, the court said, the federal government did not dispute.

The appeals court noted that when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the act adding "under God," he said, "From this day forward, the millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." (More on pledge's history)

The court cited recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions that said students cannot hold religious invocations because it violates the Constitution. (High court on pledge)

In this case, the appeals court said, the lower court's decision to throw out the case found that "the ceremonial reference to God in the pledge does not convey endorsement of particular religious beliefs" -- a precedent the appeals court said is not supported by the recent Supreme Court decisions.

The 9th Circuit is the most overturned appeals court in the country and is considered by legal scholars to be the most liberal. States under its jurisdiction are Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and Washington.

Newdow, an atheist, had filed the case against the United States, Congress, California, two school districts and its officials. His daughter attends public school in Elk Grove, California, just outside Sacramento. (Why he filed lawsuit)

Outrage on Capitol Hill

In Washington, Sen. Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, called the court's decision "crazy" and "outrageous." If the case makes it to the Supreme Court, he predicted the appeal would not stand.

"This decision is so much out of the mainstream of thinking of Americans and the culture and values that we hold in America, that any Congressman that voted to take it out would be putting his tenure in Congress in jeopardy at the next election," Grassley said.

Republican House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois said, "Obviously, the liberal court in San Francisco has gotten this one wrong."

Rep. Richard Gephardt, Democrat of Missouri, also blasted the court, saying the decision "doesn't make good sense to me."

"I think the decision is poorly thought out. That's why we have other courts to look at decisions like that. I hope it gets changed."