<


13. AMERICA STUMBLES

THE FEDERAL COURTS AS AMERICA'S SUPREME LAW-MAKING BODIES

CONTENTS

"Progressives" know where real law-making power is to be found

Newdow heads to court to undercut the Pledge of Allegiance

Judge Jones decides for America its fundamental worldview

The textual material on this webpage is drawn directly from my work
        America's Story – A Spiritual Journey © 2021, pages 425-427.
"PROGRESSIVES" KNOW WHERE REAL LAW-MAKING POWER IS TO BE FOUND

It had not taken the American "progressives" or political "Left" long to figure out that it was not to Congress they were to go, but instead to the federal courts in having their political-cultural-moral-spiritual agenda enforced as the foundational worldview or religion, in opposition to the traditional Christian worldview – one which the "progressives" wanted gone, gone, gone.  Congress still responded to the will of the vast majority of the American people, registered in their right to vote in defense of their fundamental values.  But Leftists knew that they could have a simple decree by a handful of judges effectively revise the law of the land completely in their ideological favor, and that there was no recourse available to the American people once the lawyers in black robes had decided to favor the "progressive" views of those self-enlightened Leftists.  The rulings of the federal judges were the absolute law of the land, Congress notwithstanding.

NEWDOW HEADS TO COURT TO UNDERCUT THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

And thus in the year 2000 Michael Newdow sued the U.S. Congress over the phrase "under God" contained in the Pledge of Allegiance, claiming that this was harmful to his daughter.  He naturally went to the 9th Circuit Court (the American West Coast and Hawaii) – where "progressives" knew they could always count on great ideological favor.  And indeed the court agreed with Newdow.  However, this decision stirred a major reaction, including even in the U.S. Congress.  Then the 9th Circuit Court bent over backwards to help Newdow, awarding him custody over his daughter, after the U.S. Supreme Court in 2004 dismissed his case when it was discovered that only his mother, a Christian, originally had such custody – and thus he had no right to present his case.  Newdow then tried again in 2005, again getting another 9th Circuit Court decision in his favor.  This time the Becket Fund fought both Newdow and the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) that was supporting Newdow.  Newdow went from court to court, fighting case after case not just about the pledge but also the use of prayer and the wording of the presidential oath at presidential inaugurations, both Bush's and Obama's in fact.  But he was increasingly finding the decisions not going in his favor.

JUDGE JONES DECIDES FOR AMERICA ITS FUNDAMENTAL WORLDVIEW

But a decision that hit the Christian world hard was the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.  Eleven parents, supported by the ever-vigilant ACLU, took the Dover (Pennsylvania) school district to the federal District Court of Judge John Jones.  The plaintiffs complained that a required reading of a short statement – recommending 9th grade students to also take into consideration (on their own, not in class) the Intelligent Design (ID) viewpoint that challenges Darwinism – violated the earlier 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard Supreme Court decision.  This earlier decision had clearly outlawed the teaching of the doctrine of "creationism," a Christian, and thus not scientifically "Secular," view on the origins of the universe.  And Intelligent Design was simply another form of creationism – and thus automatically "unconstitutional."

Judge Jones knew exactly how he wanted the case to turn out and would not let those supporting the ID viewpoint bring in expert witnesses.  He simply decreed that ID was merely a sneak attack in favor of creationism – and slapped a $1 million fine on the Dover School Board as a lesson to anyone else who would attempt such "breathtaking inanity" (his words). He intended his case to be a landmark case.  And indeed it was in the way it made very clear how the federal courts served as a highly authoritarian instrument by which a small group of people are able not only to impose their view on others, but to leave those others devastated should they dare to resist such authoritarianism.  So much for "democracy" and First Amendment Freedoms ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.")  This was classic authoritarian prohibiting of the free exercise of the people's religious rights ... a prohibition making it not only illegal but highly punishable just to mention that there are other viewpoints than the court-certified and thus "established" Darwinist view concerning the creation of the universe, and in general the court-backed Darwinist or Secular (atheist) worldview on all matters concerning life on this planet.



Go on to the next section:  Obama Strives to "Change" America

  Miles H. Hodges