A liberal Carter-appointee heard the ACLU case against the NSA surveillance program. Before filing suit, I’m sure the ACLU shopped around for a sympathetic judge. The outcome was no surprise.

Judge Finds NSA Program Unconstitutional

A federal judge decision’s to strike down President Bush’s warrantless surveillance program was the first ruling over its legality, but surely not the last. U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit ruled Thursday that the program violated the rights to free speech and privacy, as well as the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution.

Normally, you have to prove that you were hurt somehow before the judge rules in your favor. None of the people who filed suit claim that their own phones were actually tapped, therefore no harm was done to them. This is one of those cases were the judge is making new law and not following the law as written.

Just like the Newdow case, SCOTUS should throw this one out because the plaintiffs had no grounds to file suit.

US District Judge Frank C. Damrell Jr. dismissed a lawsuit brought by activist and atheist Michael Newdow seeking to have the words “In God We Trust” removed from our money.

Newdow was suing on the grounds that the appearance of those words on our money constituted a violation of his 1st Amendment rights. The suit, which targeted Congress and other federal officials and claimed that the mere appearance of the words “In God We Trust” on the official currency of the nation, is an establishment of religion and violates the 1st Amendment’s establishment clause which requires a “separation of church and state” and “excludes people who do not believe in God”.

Continue reading →

A public-interest legal group is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowing a California public school to engage in a three-week intensive course for 7th graders on how to “become Muslims.”

A California federal trial court and the 9th Circuit, widely considered the nation’s most liberal appeals court, determined the class did not violate the Constitution.

This is the same Court that ruled the pledge of alligience unconstitutional because it included the words, “under God”. If ever there were a questionable court it would be this one. They have made quite a name for themselves through controversial rulings.

The 2001 course had students take Islamic names and wear identification tags that displayed their new Islamic name and the Muslim star and crescent moon. They also were handed materials that instructed them to “Remember Allah always so that you may prosper”; complete the Islamic five pillars of faith, including fasting; and memorize and recite the “Bismillah,” or “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate,” which students also wrote on banners hung on the classroom walls.

Students also played “jihad games” during the course, which was part of the school’s world history and geography program.

Richard Thompson, president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, said the “case cries out double standard.”

“The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is the same court that held our Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it contained the phrase ‘under God,’ and yet they allow a three-week intensive course on how to become Muslims, including class memorization of Islamic prayers and participation in Islamic religious rituals,” Thompson said.

Edward L. White III, the Law Center’s trial counsel handling the case, argued that although a public school may teach about religion, the school district “went far beyond an explanation of the historical or literary significance of Islam and placed these seventh graders into the position of becoming trainees in that religion.”

“These young children were indoctrinated in Islam, which the Constitution forbids,” White said.

Continue reading →