Ryan Prins' Blog

The first article reminds me of an episode of Arrested Development.

And to flex my basic legal knowledge, the important thing about the second article is:

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Which means he’s just following what the people who outrank him (the 9th circuit of appeals that have jurisdiction over him) have decided in the past. He’s not allowed to go against what higher ranked courts decided in the past or you’d see lower courts overruling Supreme Court decisions and the legal system would fall apart. In that context, I’m not surprised he decided this way.

This part is also interesting:

The decisions by Karlton and the 9th Circuit conflict with an August opinion by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. That court upheld a Virginia law requiring public schools lead daily Pledge of Allegiance recitation, which is similar to the requirement in California.

When circuit courts start coming up with conflicting decisions, that’s when the Supreme Court is more likely to do something about it so we might see them take the issue this time around.

Hm, nice insight, Greg.