New Pledge of Allegiance Case, and precential effect of Ninth Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision

[Brad Pardee]

If that was the judge's reasoning, then regardless of whether his ultimate ruling was legally right or wrong, he doesn't understand his job.  Judges aren't supposed to rule based one what they think is the right thing or the wrong thing.  That's what legislators do.  Judges are supposed to rule based on what the law says, regardless of whether or not the end result fits with what they think qualifies as "do[ing] the right thing".

Brad

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ArtSpitzer at aol.com 
  To: religionlaw at lists.ucla.edu 
  Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:10 PM
  Subject: Re: New Pledge of Allegiance Case,and precential effect of Ninth Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision


  Perhaps the real explanation for the district judge's statement about being bound is that he wanted to do the right thing, but needed to place the blame elsewhere.  Even life tenure doesn't solve all problems.

  Art Spitzer 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20050914/74f3da1b/attachment.htm