Fwd: professional schmuck

Courts, Even Liberal Ones, Growing Weary Of Michael Newdow

Professional schmuck, Michael Newdow, wearing out his welcome.

Atheist activist Michael Newdow, a controversial  lawyer who once  received significant media attention, may have worn out  his welcome at  the U.S. Supreme Court this week.

Derrrrrrrrrrrrrrp

Although many lawyers who argue before the  Supreme Court only do so  once, a select group of perhaps 20 elite  lawyers repeatedly appear  before the court. The court often welcomes  cases offered by these  top-shelf attorneys, knowing that the justices  will read polished  briefs and hear well-reasoned arguments, which assist  the court in  reaching the correct result.

Newdows name appears in petitions before the  court so often that  you might mistake him for one of these appellate  powerhouses. Newdow is  best known for convincing the U.S. Court of  Appeals for the 9th  Circuit that the Pledge of Allegiance is  unconstitutional because it  mentions one nation under God. This case  became Newdows debut before  the Supreme Court in 2004, where the court  dismissed his case because  he lacked standing.

Since then, Newdow has brought a series of  lawsuits, trying to  challenge every aspect of expressions of faith in  public settings or  events nationwide. If he loses in the lower courts,  he appeals, until  finally he petitions the Supreme Court to take the  case.

This week, the court rejected Newdows latest  gambit in his crusade  to completely secularize society. It arose from  the 9th Circuits  decision in Newdows recent case arguing that it  violates the  Establishment Clause to print our national motto In God We  Trust on  U.S. currency.

This case, Newdow v. Lefevre, was argued  before the 9th Circuit back  in 2007, and was decided in March 2010 after  an extraordinarily long  wait. The appellate court noted that Newdow has  now formed his own  church, the First Amendmist Church of the True  Science (FACTS for  short). He argues that it violates the teaching of  his church to use  money bearing the national motto.

This proved too much even for the most liberal  appeals court in  America. The 9th Circuit had upheld the  constitutionality of the  national motto in 1970, where the court held,  It is quite obvious that  the national motto has nothing whatsoever  to do with the  establishment of religion. Its use is of a patriotic or  ceremonial  character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental  sponsorship  of a religious exercise. Reasoning that the 1970 case had  not been  overruled during the intervening 40 years, the court dismissed  Newdows  case.