The
Court recently granted atheist Michael Newdow permission to represent
himself in his suit to remove "under God" from the Pledge.
|
Send
in the Clowns: Atheist Reverend to Argue His "Under God"
Challenge Before High Court
By
Erin Murphy
Long
before the miracles of modern media, one of the preferred sources
of American entertainment was watching trials and arguments at court.
The Supreme Courts latest ruling in the infamous Pledge of
Allegiance case may bring that practice back into style.
The
Court recently granted atheist Michael Newdow permission to represent
himself in his suit to remove "under God" from the Pledge.
Newdow lawyer, medical doctor and founder and reverend of
the First Amendmist Church of True Science doesnt technically
have standing to argue before the High Court because he has been
a member of the bar for less than the required three years, but
the Court agreed to let him argue anyway.
Apparently,
the justices just couldnt pass up the chance to have a go
at the self-styled Rev. Dr. Newdow in all his grandeur. After all,
Newdow has argued that his wife tricked him into fathering her child
by date-raping him on a camping trip; that the family law system
ruins peoples lives by mistakenly overemphasizing the best
interests of the child while overlooking the rights of the parents;
and that the Supreme Courts traditional opening of "God
save this honorable Court" is unconstitutional and offensive
to atheists. Faced with the monotony of lawyers who drone on and
on about actual law, who could blame the justices for wanting to
have a little fun?
Undoubtedly,
Newdow believes the Court was swayed by his insistence that his
own atheist perspective is needed to achieve the deeper passion
and more lucid understanding the issue demands. This assertion appears
a bit disingenuous for a couple of reasons. First, it seems unlikely
that Newdow could not find one qualified attorney among the millions
of atheists whose rights he claims to be protecting. Lawyers have
been called many things as a group, but God-fearing is seldom one
of them. Second, in this day and age, it is a rare lawyer who doesnt
possess the ability to passionately argue something he doesnt
believe in. If Newdow genuinely thinks zealous faith in a clients
case strongly correlates with courtroom success, swapping stories
with a few public defenders ought to rid him of that misconception.
Of
course Newdow, who expects to win his case 8-0 (Justice Antonin
Scalia has recused himself), is certain he is the best man for the
job and thus rings true the old adage that lawyers who represent
themselves have fools for clients. Not that Newdow is necessarily
unqualified for the job; his success to date suggests quite the
opposite (of course, bear in mind that succeeding in the Ninth Circuit
often has little to do with law). But Newdows insistence upon
pro se representation is symbolic of what all his arguments
inevitably are about: himself. It wouldnt be enough to win
the war if he couldnt get credit for all the battles, too.
After all, he has had to face the burdens of unconsensual fatherhood,
the oppression of the family court system, and now the indignity
of his daughter hearing the word "God" at school. And
look at the toll these hardships have taken the inadequacies
of the legal system are now forcing the good doctor to squander
his mere $3 million savings in pursuit of his long-overdue audience
before the nations highest court. If Newdow turned the star
role in his self-aggrandizing drama over to an understudy at this
late hour, he might make the rookie mistake of letting the message
overshadow the medium.
At
the very least, Rev. Dr. Newdow taking on eight of the greatest
legal minds in the country again, Justice Scalia has recused
himself promises a good show. And anyone who doesnt
make the courtrooms limited seating need not lose hope
Newdow is planning encores with cases challenging the use of Congressional
chaplains, inaugural prayers and the national motto "In God
We Trust." True, there may be something troubling about the
justices wisdom in devoting their limited time to the gripes
of a whining millionaire. But at least Americans can find some solace
in that our system of justice still ensures that any idiot can get
his day in court.
Erin
Murphy is a student at Georgetown University Law Center and an intern
at the Center for Individual Freedom.
[Posted
December 4, 2003]
Return
to Current Events Index
|