Liberty
Matters News Service
June 16, 2004
Supreme Court Rules on Pledge
A unanimous decision by the Supreme Court, 8-0 (Scalia abstained), means the phrase "under God" will remain in the Pledge of Allegiance. The ruling, which was announced June 14, Flag Day, overturns the 2002 decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that determined the phrase is unconstitutional. Michael Newdow, the atheist who brought suit, argued before the Court last year that; "[T]hose who deny the existence of a supreme being have been turned into second class citizens by a government that continuously sends messages that 'real Americans' believe in God." Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority opinion in which he said; "When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law." Chief Justice Rehnquist, as well as Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas, wrote separate opinions in defense of the constitutionality of the inclusion of the phrase. Although conservatives were delighted in the decision there was some disappointment voiced that the Court did not directly address the issue of separation of church and state. The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America reads in part; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…" Family Research Council President Tony Perkins predicted because the Supremes failed to take a firm stand on the issue "[L]ook for atheists to come out of the closet in the near future with new attacks on the Pledge."
'Under God' to Remain in Pledge
Supremes Reverse Tenth Circuit on Wilderness
The Supreme Court, in a 9-0 decision, on Monday, overturned a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) could be sued for allowing damage to Wilderness Study Areas in Southern Utah. The suit was brought by the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance in an effort to force the BLM to protect 2 million acres of potential wilderness from the perceived ravages of off-road vehicles. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the Court, said that Congress never envisioned "pervasive oversight by federal courts over the manner and pace of agency compliance." Wilderness Study Areas (WSA) are those lands that are examined for their suitability as future wilderness areas, however, under the current climate they are managed as de facto wilderness sites precluding their use for grazing and other normal uses. Nationwide, six million acres of the total 15.5 million acres of BLM WSA have been deemed suitable for wilderness designation, yet all 15.5 million acres are being managed as wilderness until Congress takes action.
Court Blocks Suit Over Western Wilderness
The Mouse That Never Was
Now that studies by the Denver Museum of Nature and Science have shown that the Preeble's Mouse does not exist, the question looms; what to do about the builders, local governments and landowners who have been forced to spend millions of dollars to protect a rodent that has been deemed to be identical to the common Bear Lodge meadow jumping mouse. At the insistence of environmentalists, 31,000 acres along streams in Colorado and Wyoming have been set aside as critical habitat inflicting tremendous costs on those wishing to use their land. Some estimates indicate at least $100 million have been poured down that rat hole. Land use restrictions have prevented ranchers from clearing their ditches of weeds, exacerbating the damage caused by a prolonged drought. Urban dwellers have had to keep their domestic cats leashed. Even worse, the mouse rules have made it impossible to build much needed water storage facilities to help ease the impact of the five-year drought. "The bottom line is, it has been a wonderful tool for environmental groups to try to stop things," said Kent Holsinger, attorney for Coloradan for Water Conservation and Development.
Research: Endangered Mouse Never Existed
No Surprises No More
Environmentalists won a court victory last week when Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to revise the "no surprises" rule to allow more public input regarding permits. The rule was adopted in 1998 to give home builders, timber and mining companies' protection against the ever-changing demands of the Endangered Species Act. "Now a permit isn't worth the paper it's written on," said Duane Desiderio, a vice president of the National Association of Home Builders. Desiderio explained that since most endangered species occur on private property, his industry will face difficulties in trying to ply its trade without the "no surprises" safety net. "The underlying thrust of the 'no surprises' rule is, a deal is a deal." Eric Glitzenstein, a Washington-based attorney for the environmental groups that brought the suit said; "This is a message by the court that these policies have to be revisited and that a much higher emphasis has to be put on species protections." Judge Sullivan's rule forbids the federal agencies from continuing to provide blanket assurances against future requirements under the "no surprises" and permit revocation rules at least until December 10.
Judge Halts Endangered Species Permit Rule