Contributors

  • Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Congress Appropriates More for Legal Services | Main | National Restaurant Association Names New Top Lobbyist »

December 15, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d94869e20120a754b9d8970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference D.C. Circuit Takes Up Presidential Oath Case:

Comments

mj

Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, please....

Keith Berka

Welcome aboard! You are now a member of the fastest growing non-faith based religion ever created by human kind. “New Atheism.” Enjoy it! You are not alone.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that Atheism must be considered a Religion in order to come under court authority for first amendment protection by the first amendment law. Therefore, presto, Atheism is religion. Even though it is non-faith based religion, it still gets to be religion. The court is the final arbiter. Cheers!

David M Doughty

"Stigmatic injury." Hmmmm.

I can see it now. The Army of the future: Brigades of lawyers fanning out across foreign lands and being admitted to practice in their courts. Then the insidious warplan will be unfurled. Meaningless litigation will be wrought on the poor unsuspecting cretins until they are nothing but a shell of their former selves. Lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit until they are unable to do the simplest of tasks for fear of being sued into oblivion. Good Lord! Oh wait! Don't publish this! I said "Lord." Now I too will face Mr. Newdow's wrath and ability to file a complaint! God help me! Oh wait! I've done it again! Aaaarrrgggghhh!

Bob Ritter

The issue before the appeals court today was whether Newdow and his 252 other individual plaintiffs had standing to bring the law suit. Judge Kavanaugh correctly noted during the hearing that in other cases where plaintiffs allege unwelcome exposure to government sponsored religious symbols or prayer, the plaintiffs had standing including as recently as Van Orden v. Perry and McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (both 2005). This case is no different.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad

Advertisements