www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/inauguration.prayer.ap/index.html
WASHINGTON (AP) -- An atheist who tried to remove "under God" from the Pl edge of Allegiance lost a bid Friday to bar the saying of a Christian pr ayer at President Bush's inauguration. US District Judge John Bates said Michael Newdow had no legal basis to pursue his claim because he could not show he would suffer any injury fr om hearing the prayer. Bates also ruled that Newdow's claim should be denied because he already had filed and lost a similar lawsuit at a federal appeals court in Calif ornia last year. Newdow argued that saying a Christian prayer at the January 20 ceremony w ould violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religiou s beliefs. Attorneys representing Bush and his inaugural committee argued that praye rs have been widely accepted at inaugurals for more than 200 years and t hat Bush's decision to have a minister recite the invocation was a perso nal choice the court had no power to prevent. During the two-hour hearing on Thursday, Bates questioned both sides vigo rously but expressed doubt that a court could order the president not to include a prayer when he takes the oath of office. "Is it really in the public interest for the federal courts to step in an d enjoin prayer at the president's inauguration?" Much of the hearing did not focus on the merits of Newdow's legal claims, but instead centered on whether the lawsuit should be thrown out becaus e Newdow lost a similar case in California last year. The San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2003 t hat Newdow did not suffer "a sufficiently concrete and specific injury" when he opposed prayers from being recited at Bush's first inauguration. Newdow -- arguing his case via telephone conference hookup from Californi a -- said his case is different this time because he actually has a tick et to attend the inauguration. That atmosphere, he said, is more coerciv e than four years ago, when he planned to watch the ceremony on televisi on. Justice Department lawyer Edward White scoffed at that claim, saying the issues in the two cases are the same and that Newdow still has not shown how he would be injured by hearing the prayer. George Terwilliger, appearing for the inaugural committee, said the detai ls of the ceremony are not officially sanctioned government action but m erely the personal choice of the president. Newdow won widespread publicity two years ago when he persuaded the 9th C ircuit to rule that the separation of church and state was violated when public school students pledged to God. But the Supreme Court later threw out the ruling, saying Newdow could not lawfully sue because he did not have custody of his elementary school-a ge daughter, on whose behalf he sued. Newdow refiled the pledge suit in Sacramento federal court this month, na ming eight other plaintiffs who are custodial parents or the children th emselves.
|
http://csua.com/feed/