Simply on the predictive issue: (1) Does the Ninth Circuit have a "related cases" rule, and (2) if so, would the appeal of this decision fall within the rule?
----- Original Message ----- From: "Scarberry, Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 11:12 pm Subject: RE: New Pledge of Allegiance Case, and precential effect of Ninth Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision > Let me recommend Howard Bashman's post on the precedent issue at How > Appealing, http://legalaffairs.org/howappealing/. (Scroll down to > 8:01 pm > 9/14/05 post.) He presents arguments for the following conclusion: > > "In holding that the Ninth Circuit's Pledge of Allegiance ruling, > even after > being reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, requires the U.S. > District Court > for the Eastern District of California to hold that recitation of > the Pledge > in public schools is unconstitutional, today's ruling is really, > reallywrong." > > Mark Scarberry > Pepperdine > > -----Original Message----- > From: Brad Pardee > To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics > Sent: 9/14/2005 8:00 PM > Subject: Re: New Pledge of Allegiance Case, and precential effect > of Ninth > Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision > > I appreciate Art's clarification of what he meant. He's correct > that I > understood his saying the judge "wanted to do the right thing" as > meaning that judge was acting based on his own understanding of right > and wrong as opposed to what the law reads. > > I would think, though, that it would not speak well of him if he had > felt a need to issue his decision in a certain way out of his concerns > about the unpopularity of his decision. In that I am not a lawyer, > muchless a judge, perhaps I'm holding onto pollyanish expectations > of the > judicial branch, but it seems to me that accepting the mantle of a > judgerequires enough moral courage to do what your job requires of > you,regardless of popular opinion. Again, not being a lawyer, I > don't feel > I'm in a position to accurately understand his motivations based on > thequoted section of the opinion, so I will look forward to reading > andlearning from what I read here from the learned assemblage. > > Brad > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <')" >[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu <')" >religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu> > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 8:57 PM > Subject: Re: New Pledge of Allegiance Case,and precential effect of > Ninth Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision > > Brad assumes that when I said the judge "wanted to do the right > thing,"I meant the politically right thing or the the right thing > by his > personal lights. That's not at all what I meant, and I would agree > withhim that a judge is not supposed to follow such a course. > > What I meant was that the judge may have wanted to do the legally > rightthing -- as I believe he did -- but may have felt the need to > seek the > shelter of the 9th Circuit's previous decision to reduce the heat that > would (and surely will) come his way because he did a wildly unpopular > thing. > > However, now that I've seen the judge's candid footnote, I agree with > Anthony Picarello that he seems to have explained his own reasons > prettywell. > > Art Spitzer > > <<ATT59383.txt>> > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw > > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed > as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages > that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members > can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others. >
begin:vcard n:Tushnet;Mark fn:Mark Tushnet,tushnet tel;fax:202-662-9497 tel;work:202-662-1906 org:Georgetown University Law Center; adr:;;600 New Jersey Ave. NW;Washington;DC;20001; version:2.1 email;internet:[EMAIL PROTECTED] end:vcard
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
