Judge Continues Demanding Courtroom Compliance in Reciting Pledge
- Posted on October 8, 2010 at 6:47pm by
Meredith Jessup
- Print »
- Email »
TUPELO, Miss. (AP) – A Mississippi judge again asked everyone in his courtroom to stand and pledge allegiance to the flag, despite an uproar over whether he has the right to make such a request.
The furor began Wednesday when an attorney with a reputation for fighting free speech battles stayed silent as everyone else recited the patriotic oath. The lawyer was jailed.
A day later, Judge Talmadge Littlejohn continued to ask those in his courtroom to say the pledge.
“I didn’t expect the Pledge of Allegiance, but he asked me to do it, so I did it,” said Melissa Adams, 41, who testified in a child custody case that was closed to the public.
Attorney Danny Lampley spent about five hours behind bars before Littlejohn set him free so that the lawyer could work on another case. Lampley told The Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal he respected the judge but wasn’t going to back down.
“I don‘t have to say it because I’m an American,” Lampley told the newspaper.
Lampley has kept quiet since. He didn’t return telephone calls, and a voice message said, “In the aftermath of the event on Oct. 6, I am unable to respond to all of the telephone calls and at the same time take care of my business and clients.” An address listed for him turned out not to be his house.
The Supreme Court ruled nearly 70 years ago that schoolchildren couldn’t be forced to say the pledge, a decision widely interpreted to mean no one could be required to recite it.
Lampley, 49, previously refused to say the pledge in front of Littlejohn in June. He was asked to leave the courtroom, but returned after the pledge.
In the small town of Tupelo, the birthplace of Elvis with a population of about 35,000, some were infuriated by Lampley’s silence.
“I thought he was a disgrace to the United States,” Bobby Martin, a 43-year-old self-employed maintenance worker, said of Lampley. “If he can’t say that in front of a judge, he don’t deserve to be here” in this country.
Others voiced support for the attorney.
“I’m speechless. The judge needs a reminder copy of the First Amendment,” said Judith Schaeffer, a Washington attorney who, along with Lampley, successfully sued the Pontotoc school district in northern Mississippi in the 1990s to stop students from praying over the intercom.
Lampley also was victorious representing a Ku Klux Klan leader when a county in the Mississippi Delta tried to prevent a rally.
“Danny‘s going to stand up for everybody’s principles,” she said. “Danny loves the Constitution. He’s a staunch defender of constitutional rights.”
Lampley was representing a client in a divorce case when he was found in contempt. The judge’s order, obtained by The Associated Press, said: “Lampley shall purge himself of said criminal contempt by complying with the order of this Court by standing and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance in open court.”
An AP reporter tried to arrange an interview with the judge at the courthouse, but a clerk said he was unavailable and the order spoke for itself.
Littlejohn is in his mid-70s and has been a chancery judge for eight years, presiding mainly over divorces and child custody disputes. He was a state lawmaker, prosecutor and city judge before then. He’s also a Sunday School teacher at First Baptist Church of New Albany and is known for running an orderly, professional courtroom.
“He respects God and he respects the flag,” Alcorn County Chancery Clerk Bobby Marolt said.
Adams, who testified in the custody case, described the judge as a good listener who likes to make jokes when appropriate.
“He’s very calm, but he gets on you when he needs to,” Adams said. “He listens to you and he’s constantly writing things down.”
Omar Craig was a defense attorney when Littlejohn was a district attorney years ago. Craig, 83, has practiced law for 56 years in north Mississippi and called Littlejohn one of the leading judges in that part of the state.
“He’s a fine judge. Fair. Honest,” Craig said.
Judges in Mississippi are elected, though they run in nonpartisan races. Littlejohn is running unopposed for re-election in November.
He ran for a congressional seat as a Democrat in 1996, finishing second out of three candidates in the Democratic primary. He lost a runoff.
The Pledge of Allegiance has faced challenges since it was published in 1892.
In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled that children in public schools could not be forced to salute the flag and say the pledge. In 1954, the words “under God” were added to the pledge, when members of Congress at the time said they wanted to set the United States apart from “godless communists.”
In March, an appellate court upheld references to God on U.S. currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance, rejecting arguments they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 575 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 372 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 342 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 404 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 342 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 150 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 403 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (168)
grnhrn
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 11:31pmSadly I would of went to jail also. While I love and pledge alliegience to america and have recited many times I will be damned if I wil be forced to do so freakin hipocrits wake up just because you don‘t conform and publicly show allegience on demand doesn’t mean you don’t have it. Next they will be asking you to take the mark of the beast or die kind-a-like islam.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 11:44pm“Just because you don‘t conform and publicly show allegience on demand doesn’t mean you don’t have it.”
You might say that when I go to church on Sundays and pray the liturgical prayers along with the priest and my fellow Catholics, that I am being “forced” to “conform.” Or, you might say that I pray those prayers because they flow out of a deep need for prayer and a deep love for God, and it is a joy to pray them.
You might say that when I go to a baseball game and stand and remove my hat at the beginning and put my hand over my heart and sing along to the National Anthem, that I am being “forced” to “conform” just because everyone else is doing the same thing. Or, you might say that it is a joy for me to sing the National Anthem because I love my country and those words *never* feel “forced.”
If the prayers feel “forced” in church, there’s nothing wrong with the priest, or with the Church, but with me. If the National Anthem feels “forced” at the baseball game, there’s nothing wrong with the words, or with the nation, but with me.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:29amYou “might” say that Dad. Of course that you went there out of free will and if you chose not to comply a baliff wouldn’t take you to jail now would he?
Funny how the details seems to screw up such a wonderfully made point (sarcasm).
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:54pmOh, for the love of sanity, Rothbardian, I didn’t go to the baseball game for the purpose of saying the National Anthem; I went to the game for the purpose of seeing my team kick the other team’s collective hind quarters. When I was growing up, I didn’t go to school for the purpose of saying the Pledge of Allegiance; I went to school for the purpose of learning (and I didn’t always go to school by my free choice, either, just as I didn’t always go to church by choice when my mother had to drag me there by the ear). Whatever my purpose for being there, I don’t put my love of country (or God) on hold.
Funny how the details seem to screw up such a wonderfully made point (sarcasm).
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:14pmSorry CaitlynsDad, you completely missed the point of Rothbardian’s post. We’re all so very happy that you are so religious and patriotic, and oh so humble about it that you have to launch into stories about church, school and baseball games for no reason at all. The point is that if you did not say the pledge at school, or the anthem at the baseball game, you were not hauled off to jail. The lawyer in the story above was. This story, oddly enough, does not revolve around you.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:38pmOh, please, Publius, get over it! I’m not using this illustrations to make a point about myself, I’m using these illustrations because they help me make the point in a way I hope would make sense to you. I‘m beginning to see that that’s a pointless endeavor, which is typical with liberals since in my experience they always tend to shift the grounds of argument from the subject to the individual addressing it.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 5:47pmI’m sure I understand much more than you think I do, and I have no interest in talking about “the individual addressing it” (meaning you in this case). That’s exactly what my post was saying. I don’t want to attack you as a person–YOU are the one who brought your life into this.
My point is simply that your examples, even if they were for the purpose of clarification, have no bearing on the particular case in this story, and don’t actually prove anything helpful. All they seem to prove is that YOU don’t feel coerced into saying the prayers, the pledge or the national anthem. That’s fine, but it has nothing to do with the lawyer being jailed.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 5:54pm@Publius
Report Post »Okay, maybe I responded a little too soon since obviously a pet peeve was involved here–interlocutors attempting to shift the ground of argument from the argument to the arguer. Oops; I’m human. At any rate, my point remains: I do presume you know what an analogy is? If not, kindly trouble yourself to find out before you hurl baseless accusations of self-centeredness.
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 5:57pmPublius, I hope the responses I wrote for above show up sometime soon, because (I hope) they will answer some of your concerns. If not, then we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But don‘t presume that I haven’t addressed an issue until you read what I have said in those pending posts.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 6:28pm@Publius
Report Post »Hey, they finally showed up above. You’ll find two posts that say essentially the same thing, though in slightly different ways.
Off to better things … fun discussion, even though we’re on different sides.
shotgun
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 10:44pmBAD JUDGE!!! A clear abuse of power. Its is often wondered how the people of Germany could go along with such a crazy man (hitler). Well look at the dip %$&*s that go along with these type of freaks in our own country.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 11:13pmShotgun aims his weapon against his own argument when he absurdly attempts to equate “liberty and justice for all” with brownshirts and death camps for Jews. Just because some nations abuse the ideal of allegiance doesn’t mean that allegiance is a false ideal. Just because trolls pepper The Blaze with inanities doesn’t mean the rest of us are inane.
Report Post »angrymob
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 10:05pmI pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, individable with liberty and justice for ALL!
Eat that pinko!
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:27amSo if you believe in Liberty for all, then how can you advocate jailing someone who wishes to remain silent?
Methinks you have a problem in your worldview.
Report Post »Alfredo deLorenzo
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 9:56pmI for one feel it a privilege to recite the Pledge and if someone is so offended by the request to join a reaffirmation of our allegiance to America and it’s flag I would suggest they find a country worthy of their allegiance. If I lived in a house that I was ashamed of I would leave and follow my dream. But, isn’t that why our forefathers did to make this country what it is?
Report Post »Okpulot Taha
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 10:33pmALFREDO deLORENZO comments, “I for one feel it a privilege to recite the Pledge”
A privilege is not a law. A privilege is permission to do something or not do something.
A law is something we must do or must not do. There is no permission.
Issue here is this judge is violating our Constitutional guarantees, specifically our right to free speech, which is a right to speak or to not speak. Forcing a person to recite our pledge of allegiance under color of authority is both unlawful and a violation of our civil rights. This judge has committed multiple criminal offenses and multiple civil offenses. This cannot be allowed.
This judge displays a demeanor fitting for Germany circa 1930 – 1940.
There is a subtle underlying problem. This judge is mentally disturbed. There is no doubt this judge suffers some form of mental disease.
Talmadge Littlejohn is not qualified to be a judge. He forfeited his right to be a judge upon committing criminal offenses and civil offenses. He is also not mentally fit to be judge, he suffers mental illness.
Again, most disturbing, this judge is deciding the fate of children and families. I have no doubt he is making decisions which endanger both children and parents.
Talmadge Littlejohn is unfit to be a judge and needs to be removed from the bench, yesterday.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
unionrockstar
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:44pmOkpulot Taha:
Report Post »Mentally ill?
Requiring a court room full of “Americans” to recite (or at least move their lips) the pledge of alliagiance is now regarded as mentally unstable. What will be next?
Okpulot Taha
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:06pmUNION ROCK STAR asks, “Mentally ill?”
Yes, mentally ill. This judge has to be mentally disturbed to brazenly comment criminal offenses against people right there in his courtroom. This judge is displaying cognitive dysfunction.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
unionrockstar
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 9:23pmSince when is cognitive dysfunction against the law?
Report Post »Furthermore how did you come to diagnose this mental state?
Just because he loves his country and assumes that everyone in attendence in the court room may possibly do the same is not a crime. He may be over assuming the normality of an American citizen feeling the same about their country as he does. That may be where he went wrong concerning the law. I guess we just can’t assume anymore that all American citizens are actually proud to be a part of the country they choose to live in. Maybe you’re correct that we have long passed the point where we can take for granted that everyone who resides in this country actually loves it.
Okpulot Taha
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 9:55pmThis judge needs to be removed from the bench, now, right now. Talmadge Littlejohn is not a judge, he is a tyrant. This judge is making a mockery of our America. He is a national embarrassment. He needs to be tossed into his own jail for many years.
Disturbs me this jerk presides over child custody cases. No telling how much injury he is inflicting upon our American children. He is a danger to children and families. This judge is a threat to the safety and well being of all appearing in his court.
Okpulot Taha
Report Post »Choctaw Nation
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 11:38pm“This judge is a threat to the safety and well-being of all appearing in his court.” Yes, when I was in elementary school, middle school, and high school and was required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, I know that it was quite common for my classmates to fall over dead on the spot. I came to the conclusion that the Pledge of Allegiance could only be a powerfully Satanic incantation, and spent many years warning whoever would listen to me that there was death in its words. But now this evil judge has arisen in the land, and I fear that all my hard work will have been for naught. How long, O Lord, how long, will you permit this wickedness to flourish in the land, before you save us with a mighty salvation!!??
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 10:54amThey have to erase this story from the site, because I actually agree with Okpulot on this one. I think I need to go take a shower now….
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:09pmcaitlynsdad:
Report Post ». I must lean toward your post. After all, the judge is presiding over his court room. I just don’t understand all the anger over a judge asking everyone who is in attendance in a court room (where he has the authority) to honor our American Flag. I assume everyone is upset with the principle of the matter rather than the privilege to show respect for our country. Whatever the reason; if things continue down this road we probably won’t be troubled with situations like this much longer anyway. Maybe then we will look back to the time when we had that privilege.
RavenGlenn
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 1:45pmCaitlynsdad:
Your ramblings on this matter are silly and trite. At no point was this poster saying that the pledge is evil, wicked, satanic or any other such strawman nonsense as you spit out.
The point the poster was making is correct. Jailing someone for not saying the pledge is ILLEGAL. I don’t care who you are. A judge cannot decide anything he or she wants just because he or she is in their own courtroom. This is refusal of the first amendment rights of that lawyer. Plain and simple.
If you do not believe this is so, please, I beg of you, show me where this is allowed in the law. I’d /love/ for you to point it out for me. As I’ve been following your other discussions, you seem to always boil the argument down to: Well, if they are American, practicing law in America, earning money in America, then why can’t they pledge allegiance?!
Because(and this is really simple)…they are American! We don’t HAVE to pledge our allegiance. If we want to? Sure, go ahead. But NOBODY can force us to do so. That is something that is left to dictatorships. Personally, I also refused to say the pledge in school. Not because I’m not American, or that I don’t love my country, but because I don’t believe in saying some meaningless banter that was meant to brainwash students.
In fact, I guarantee if you ask any child to explain the pledge, they will have no idea what it means. What is the point of saying such an oath if you don’t even understand the oath you are taking?
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 3:38pm@Raven
Have you ever heard of reductio ad absurdum? It’s a rhetorical/literary form with a very long pedigree, and I was using it. Maybe not as well as better writers have, but nevertheless you do not convince me by your attempt to read substance into comments that were intended to be a mere sarcastic response to OT’s over-the-top comments about the judge being a threat to the safety and well being of those in his court.
I would ask you to point out to me where–even once–I defended jail time as a sentence for the lawyer. Truth is, if I were the judge, I would not have imposed jail time. I would have cited the lawyer for contempt of court, but a contempt of court citation does not necessitate jail time as a penalty.
I’m going to use an illustration to help you out–not the same analogies as I have used elsewhere, and it may not be convincing to you, but it’s the best I can do to explain where I am coming from. The illustration is this: every four years on January 20, when a new president is sworn in, he is required to take an oath of office, as prescribed by the Constitution. If he does not do so, he cannot lawfully take office. Now, there is a very good reason for this: The presidency of the United States is a public trust. The president is charged with upholding the laws and the Constitution of the United States, and so it is just to ask him to swear an oath to that effect.
Similarly, in court, the lawyers are executing a public trust. They are there for no other reason than to ensure that not merely the laws–but the ideals of liberty and justice for all–are applied to the cases they are arguing (and in the case of the judge and jury, the cases that appear before them). In that regard, I see absolutely nothing wrong with requiring that they state (via the Pledge) their allegiance to the ideals they presumably believe in prior to commencing the legal business of the court, in the same way that the newly-elected president swears to uphold the Constitution prior to assuming the duties of his office.
Now, I have heard many say that the lawyer does not have to state her allegiance to a set of ideals to believe in them; and technically, that’s true. But I would ask a different question: If she truly does believe in those ideals, why would she ever have a problem saying them? It is similar when an individual goes to church and stands up to say the Apostle’s Creed or the Nicene Creed. Technically, he does not have to say those words to believe them. But if he believes them, why would he have a problem with saying them?
I don’t defend jail time as a penalty for the lawyer, and I never said that I did. Those who have responded to me by protesting the penalty were in effect attempting to take me to task for an argument that I never made, and completely misread me on the only part of the question I was ever attempting to address–which was the lawyer’s original actions, and her defense of them, and not the penalty that followed.
I have difficulty believing that the lawyer truly believes in the American ideals that the public trust of her office compels her to defend in court. If she did, I don’t know why she would have a problem saying so. Instead–it seems to me–she’s attempting to hide behind the banner of her Americanism to defend another ideal which is more important to her, which is the libertarian ideal. It seems to me that she is a libertarian first and an American second. That’s all well and good–except. I certainly don’t defend stopping citizens in the street and forcing them to declare loyalty, nor would I defend it for Ms. Adams in her capacity as a private citizen. But when she’s acting in her official public duties as a lawyer, and she’s in court, that’s a very different setting altogether. This is not the same thing–do not assume it is–as saying that she’s being forced to take a loyalty oath. Rather, she’s being asked to state her commitment and adherance to a set of ideals that in her public capacity she is supposed to uphold, in the very same way that someone who is in church states his commitment to beliefs that he is supposed to have by virtue of his membership in that particular communion. Personally, if Ms. Adams is not willing to do this (I’m talking about the pledge now, not the Creed), then I don‘t think she has any more business being a lawyer than a person who won’t recite the Hippocratic Oath has being a doctor.
Now, in terms of your last point about children saying the pledge and not knowing what it means; give me a break, I’d love for you to point out to me anywhere where I gave anything close to a defense of repeating words mindlessly without knowing what they mean. Of course you teach children what they mean, just as you teach catechumens in church what the words of the Creed mean, or what the words of the Our Father mean. Since Ms. Adams is an adult and a practicing lawyer, I assume she knows what the Pledge of Allegiance means.
I hope that clarifies my position a little better than what I have written thus far. You may not buy my argument, but I think I have stated it as clearly as I have the capacity to.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 4:02pm@Raven
Report Post »My response to you was long, and is taking a while to show up–so you may see this one first–but I wanted to make an addendum to it, because in rereading the story above I see that I had had the lawyer’s name wrong. The offending lawyer was not Melissa Adams (who did say the Pledge) but Danny Lampley. The Post regrets the error.
WISEPENNY
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 9:28pmThe Judge is a control freak. If he wants to say the pledge of allegiance before conducting court, it’s perfectly fine and also admirable. Compelling others to participate or be jailed is fascist, not patriotic. Whats next? Hopscotch or else, maybe?
Report Post »unionrockstar
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 9:23pmSomebody please help me.
Report Post »Why would it offend anyone to show respect for our Flag? What has happened to us? Is there no respect for anything anymore?
Can we have a moment of silence for the passing of all our former values?
Whitehawk
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 9:17pmIf a “Judge” demands me to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, does that then make me patriotic? If I choose to not recite the pledge, does that make me guilty of treason or ???? If one is a true Christian, then his/her allegiance is to God, and pledging an oath otherwise is a compromise of their faith. NO man has the right, either in America or anywhere else on earth to demand a person to pledge their allegiance to a country. That does NOT then determine that the person is not loyal to the laws of their country, it simply means they have already pledged their allegiance to God, and that Higher Power takes precedence. Long ago the Supreme Court ruled that children could not be forced to salute the flag, so how can a sitting judge over-rule the Supreme Court?
Report Post »This is the greatest country on earth, recognized for the freedom it allows us all to worship or pledge allegiance to God, not man-made governments. If one chooses to enlist in the Military, then they must be subject to the demands of the military, which will demand a pledge of allegiance to the country you will be serving. But a private citizen? Not according to the Supreme Court.
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 11:21pmAllegiance to one’s country is not contrary to allegiance to God. For Jesus Himself said, “Render under Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” And St. Paul said in Romans 13:1-2: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.” Those are hard words in the age of Barack Obama, but there they are. America is still America, and God knows what He is doing.
“Long may our land be bright / With freedom’s holy light / Protect us by Thy might / Great God our King.”
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:25amAt Dad,
You realize that Romans 13 is speaking of the Kingdom of God…not Ceasar’s kingdom. Why would Ceasar behead Paul if Paul was demanding that Christians submit unquestioningly to the state. Furthermore, you have to read Pauls entire letter to the Romans rather than simply verse 13 to gain that context. Perhaps a Bible study session might do you good. Maybe we should make is compulsory and jail you if you don’t do it.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:25pm@Rothbardian
Report Post »Since the same (rather obvious) exegesis has been made by countless clerics, I doubt Bible study would do an ignoramus such as myself much good.
Mick
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 9:10pmGOOD CALL! Way to go Judge! Hence the title “The Honorable” Judge Talmadge Littlejohn
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:22amSo at what point do you draw the line in compulsory oathes to governments and cloth? Should we build more jails to hold those who refuse to comply?
Report Post »adifftake
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 8:53pmThe Constitution gives the right to freedom of speech true. But it is established law, the state or no one else may force yiou agasinst your conscience to pledge allegiance to another if your allegiance is to God for instance.
Report Post »MikeRaleighNC
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 8:25pmto those who use “inalienable”, please start getting it right. It UNalienable”
UNALIENABLE.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.
http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm
Report Post »MikeRaleighNC
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 8:22pmIf a judge tell you to bend over an touch your toes would you comply? If a judge tells you to spit in the face of someone, would you comply?
This is about free speech. I’m a patriot and will defend the rights of everyone. That said, it is MY RIGHT to refuse such nonsense. I will not be forced to say something simply because a judge tells me to. Our rights are slowly being eroded and to those who think it’s ok to be forced to speak simply tells me you are willing dupes to the destruction of your constitutional rights.
Report Post »Sam Clemens
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 8:14pmThe judge is only doing what God would do.
Report Post »ItsallaboutJesus
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:54pmIt is about honor and respect and if this is part of the Judge’s daily routine then there is nothing wrong with it. I think the Attorney was being disrespectful and probably knew it. Was the attorney an American? Practicing law in America? Being paid in American dollars? If so then why is there a problem? Thank you Judge!!!!
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:21amSo being disrepectful is now a jailable offense? Hmmmm. Well, I guess it’s time to start rounding up the Tea Party folks too eh?
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:18pmI don’t think “disrespect” comes into it. He was standing and he was silent. He was not jiggling about, texting or causing a disruption. The Pledge of Allegiance is a voluntary pledge. He was not administering the oath to a witness or providing testimony. He was simply standing there.
Not saying the Pledge does not mean he is not an American citizen, he is against this country, and/or anything else. It means he didn’t say it. I’d rather have him not say it and let the 15 seconds go by rather than have him say it and not mean it.
Report Post »A1955Rosie
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:49pmaclu is steeling this country blind. We no longer teach in schools the principles of “the Great Experiment” Freedom & Liberty. We only teach the dates of our virtuous deeds and hawk the mistakes. How can we as a PEOPLE defend our country of the principles when we no longer know what they are….BY DESIGN. How can we can we be “tolerant” if we don’t know when fundamentals are being crossed. THAT’S JUST PLAIN WEAK, and we don’t know it. aclu is fighting almost everyone of our laws, children dieing by their own hand because kids are tooooooo ugly. Where did they get that. We need to grow a spine and draw some lines or we’ll be “tolerant, right into sharia”.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:19amI wonder if th Sharia folks would jail people who refuse to pledge alliegence to their flag?
Report Post »Kisha Majors
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:42pmAmen to the Judge. The Attorney acted with little respect for himself, the court and the country! He did not have to recite the pledge. He could have left the room out of consideration for everyone else, and himself. Instead he chose the latter!
Is this the first time he’s ever been in court and had the pledge recited? I think not!! And saying that putting “Under God” is NOT un-constitutional. The constitution itself makes that reference! Not just money or the pledge!
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:12pmSince when is standing silently when the Pledge is recited disrespectful?
I’ve seen people chewing gum, picking their noses, and also texting during the pledge. It takes approximately 15 seconds to say it and for 15 seconds the people I‘ve seen can’t stand quietly and respectfully. Those actions are disrespectful, not standing quietly.
I don’t think that a lawyer can leave the courtroom during the time court is in session. Once you are in front of the bar, there you stay until court recesses, so leaving the room is not an option. Also, for 15 seconds, one would barely get out the door. That would be more disrespectful in my eyes, than standing silently.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:32pmI’ll never understand the pretzel-like logic of people like this Melissa Adams character. She refuses to pledge allegiance to the USA (the pledge is not just to the flag but to the nation as well), but yet she wants to hide behind the very nation she has refused allegiance to and ask it to protect her free speech rights. And she asserts freedom of speech, which she uses to defend silence rather than speech, and she doesn’t have to swear allegiance to America on the grounds that she is American.
This is why I never became a contortionist. My whole body hurts from just having typed that.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:45pmNicely said :)
It is the habit of the wicked to employ the virtues of the good as weapons against them.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:18amThat is because her rights don’t come to her from the State. Her rights are endowed to her by her creator.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 10:52amCaitlynsdad,
I wouldn’t dismiss a very real argument about individual rights as pretzel-like just because this very simple argument requires some kind of thought to understand.
Your argument rests on the idea that somehow the lawyer did not have civil rights before she was ordered to recite the pledge, and only by reciting that pledge (and obeying an arbitrary order) can she actually lay claim to the rights that would allow her freedoms like the freedom to not say the pledge. Doesn’t that seems like a bit of circular BS to you?
You also assume that by not saying the pledge under coercion, this lawyer is disloyal to America, which is just, as I have said before, hot air. You may base your silly and empty brand of patriotism on slogans and non-binding pledges, but this lawyer is being patriotic by defending the Constitution and the Bill or Rights, which seems far more relevant and meaningful, don’t you think? She was jailed for believing in her right to free speech–how exactly does that equal “hiding” behind America? That, my friend, is true patriotism, not the fake sunshine patriotism that so many try to pass off.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:27pm@Publius
Report Post »See the bottom of this page for my rebuttal on the point of “coercion” (I already had made it!). Also, perhaps you could explain to me how pointing out the circularity in someone else’s argument is itself circular.
caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:42pmPublius inaccurately pontificates:
“Your argument rests on the idea that somehow the lawyer did not have civil rights before she was ordered to recite the pledge, and only by reciting that pledge (and obeying an arbitrary order) can she actually lay claim to the rights that would allow her freedoms like the freedom to not say the pledge. Doesn’t that seems like a bit of circular BS to you?”
Actually, my argument rests on no such thing. My argument rests on the stated fact that the lawyer is relying on her Americanness to protect her rights, though declaring her allegiance to that same America is something she just will not do. America must have allegiance to me, but not necessarily the other way around. Now, exactly who is being circular here?
Analogy: If I am happily married, my wife certainly expects that I will say to her every day, “I love you,” and certainly if I am happily married I will want to say this myself. If my wife is upset with me because I obstinately refuse to say “I love you,” what kind of answer is it to say to her, “You can’t force me to say I love you! That’s coercion! Why should I have to say I love you? After all, I’m your husband! Isn’t that good enough for you?” Technically, I can still love my wife without saying it. But what kind of unfeeling monster is it who refuses to say those words?
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:09pmCaitlynsDad,
I think I have read the post of your that you are referring to, but you have far from refuted anything! The lawyer was jailed for not saying the pledge. I do not see how you can think that throwing someone in jail is not coercion. Is it possible that you do not know what the word means?
Regarding circular arguments: my point was not that both arguments are circular, only yours is. Adams is simply saying that she has a First Amendment right to not be forced to say the pledge. It’s as simple as that–and it has no bearing on the content of the pledge itself. Perhaps you are comfortable being a puppet for the government that talks whenever they pull the string, but I am not. How hard is that to understand? Our rights are not activated by saying a pledge, and it‘s insulting that anyone’s loyalty to the country should be put into question by default. Do you understand now?
And for what it’s worth, I’ll take one thinking person who understands his or her rights over any ten people who think that reciting a non-binding pledge on command means they are patriotic.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:24pm@Publius
I have another reply that addresses some of these concerns, particularly your point about circularity. Unfortunately it is “awaiting moderation” and hasn’t shown up yet. Perhaps it will show up before the weekend is out. Stay tuned. (It even uses an analogy to illustrate my point, how fun!) Maybe the censor picked up the large number of quotation marks and wanted to make sure I wasn’t infringing on some copyright law, when I was only using the quotation marks in an imaginary dialogue. Oh, well. If it doesn’t show up by Monday morning, I’ll attempt to repost it.
I would point out, though, that I wasn’t addressing the fitness of the punishment, one way or another. I was addressing the lawyer’s reasoning only. It’s really tiring to make an argument, and then have someone rebut some different argument I never made in the first place.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:35pmPublius, I‘m trying to respond to your points and my posts aren’t showing up. If you see this one, be patient (there are two beyond this one) … I do understand what “coercion” means; please, my degree is in English! I was speaking of coercion in the context of motivation, not consequence.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 5:24pm@Publius
This is an attempt to redo my original reply, and include a response to your additional points. So my apologies if this ultimately ends up as a duplicate post.
Publius inaccurately pontificates:
Your argument rests on the idea that somehow the lawyer did not have civil rights before she was ordered to recite the pledge, and only by reciting that pledge (and obeying an arbitrary order) can she actually lay claim to the rights that would allow her freedoms like the freedom to not say the pledge. Doesn’t that seems like a bit of circular BS to you?
Actually, my argument rests on the lawyer’s attempt to assert her rights on the basis of being an American at the same time that she refuses to declare any allegiance to the same America. It is a one-way street with her: America must uphold my rights, but I need declare no allegiance in return, precisely becuase I am American. I was pointing out the circularity of that; how that makes **me** circular, I do not know. And I do understand the point about coercion–but I am not talking about the suitability of the punishment, I’m merely critiquing the faulty logic of her defense. Really, you need to stop taking me to task for arguments I never made in the first place!
Analogy: If I’m married, my wife would expect me to tell her that I love her, preferably on a daily basis. Now, you could say that this is coerced behavior if I do as my wife desires. Or it could be that I tell her I love her because I really do love her. It would be no answer to say to her, Well, I don’t have to tell you I love you, because I’m your husband. I’m not going to be coerced into anything! That would be the act of a monster, not a true husband. It is the same with this lawyer; she’s attempting to say, Well, I don’t have to declare my allegiance to America, because I’m an American. In terms of the suitability of the punishment, that’s another argument–and one that I was never attempting to make in the first place. However, in the little analogy I have used here, one might be a little sympathetic to the wife if, after such treatment from her husband, she put him in domestic jail by telling him to sleep on the couch.
I hope that clarifies matters. (I hope the comment shows up!) You may or may not accept the logic of this analogy. Oh well. It’s how I see things. Sorry if you feel differently.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 5:56pmI’ll be happy to respond to the posts to follow, once they show up, but let me just say that to make a distinction between “motivation” and “outcome” when talking about coercion makes no sense. The whole point behind the concept of coercion is that someone attempts to motivate you to do something by threatening some negative outcome–coercion makes no sense as a concept without this cause and effect-like relationship, so they are inseperable.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 6:05pmMaybe obligation is a better word than coercion. I never intended originally to either approve or disapprove of the punishment–if you’re thinking of “coercion,” in that sense, than that‘s not how I’m using the term, and that‘s not the half of the question that I’m trying to get at (which half I’m willing to concede to you, if only for the sake of the other half). I’m speaking more about obligation in the sense of something you feel compelled to do with or without punishment–I‘m doing it because I’m expected to do it, but for no other reason; my mom‘s not going to send me to my room if I don’t eat those lima beans, but I‘ll eat them anyway because if I don’t she’ll give me a nasty look–or something like that.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 7:08pmAs you can see, your post did come through, analogy and all. Perhaps we are talking about different things, because I am far more concerned with this particular case and the incredible abuse of power exercized in jailing the lawyer.
But let’s think about your analogy: you feel it is your obligation to tell your wife you love her every day. Sounds good to me–I’m happily married as well, so I see the wisdom in that policy. However, what if you went to work, and your boss insists on opening each business meeting by asking you to reaffirm that you love your wife, while not so subtly implying that you, in fact, do not. Maybe you are fine with this, but I know I, along with plenty of other people, would be inclined to tell my boss that it is none of his damn business. Does this mean that I do not love my wife? What if a failure to convince your boss that you love your wife would result in your being demoted or perhaps fired. Would this seem fair to you? Would it seem like your boss is abusing his power over you?
There is nothing wrong with telling your wife that you love her, but your wife‘s position in that situation does not equal the judge’s position in this real-life situation. I may love my wife, and I may love America, but that judge is neither the one nor the other.
I do appreciate your willingness to debate this question. It’s no small matter.
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 10, 2010 at 10:07amI posted a response to your last post last night, but it doesn’t seem to be appearing, so I’ll try again.
To respond to your analogy: you say that you feel you should say that you love your wife every day. No argument there; I too am happily married, so I see the wisdom in that policy. However, what if you went to work and your boss insists on opening every business meeting by asking you whether you love your wife, implying that perhaps you do not. You may be fine with this, but I, and many other people, would say it’s none of his business! Does this mean that you do not love your wife? What if your boss threatened to demote or even fire you if you do not convince him that you love your wife? Would you consider that an abuse of his power over you?
It’s always a good idea to tell your wife you love her, but the wife in this analogy and the judge in this real-life situation are not in the same position. You can love your wife, and love your country, but the judge is neither the one or the other.
Report Post »caitlynsdad
Posted on October 11, 2010 at 9:35am@Publius
Report Post »I see the point you’re trying to make with your counter-analogy; the only problem with I have with it is that you’re creating a situation where the boss is asking his employee to swear to something that has nothing whatsoever to do with his job. In my analogy, the husband is being asked to state something that’s directly applicable to the marriage. I appreciate your insistence on protesting the penalty (and, if you haven’t seen it, take a look at a long response I wrote to Raven Glenn below, where I concede that the penalty was inappropriate). I’m simply talking about another aspect of the question.
My response to Raven Glenn also brings in another illustration that I think may be more helpful in seeing where I’m coming from on this story.
BoilitDown
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:16pmIt‘s the judge’s courtroom and the judge’s rules. Perfectly normal rules I might add. Also the attorney’s right to be repremanded for what he believes. Nothing outlandish here to my eyes. The fact that the media has given the lawyer undue attention bothers me a little.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:16amActually the judge doesn’t “rule”. We are ALL bound by the constitution. A judge is there to rule on legal matters within the framework of the law of the land…not his own law.
Report Post »poverty.sucks
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:12pmWhen testifying under oath we place our left hand on the bible, raise our right hand and swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the whole truth, so help me God.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:15amYou don‘t have to use a bible and you don’t have to say so help me God.
Report Post »sawdustking
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:56pmYou aren’t forced to “swear to tell the truth”. If you object to the oath you will be reminded that you’re subject to criminal punishment for perjury if you lie and then permitted to give your testimony.
Report Post »LuvThisCntry
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:11pmLuv it! I wish all judges in this country would say the Pledge every morning in their courtrooms. Good job, Judge! I would love to see the Pledge being recited in schools, too, better than Hmm Hmmm Hmmm….. the rest you all know.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:14amWhy don’t you say it with your children in the morning then? Why can your satisfaction not be achieved until you make everyone else do it the way you’d like and have children making oathes that they do no even understand. Do they even understand what it means to pledge alliegence? Furthermore, what if a child didn’t want to? What then? Let me guess, he should go to the principals office and recieve additon re-education until he complies.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:10pmWhen I was a child this is what you did or get slapped by the teacher, I still think it’s the right thing to do. Never ever forget. Anything less you need slapped. Good Job Judge.
Report Post »patriotwoman
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 11:34pmYou can’t force people to be patriotic. And freedom of speech also means the freedom to NOT speak.
However, that said, I do believe this reflects badly on this lawyer’s character.
I also have to ask: Is it wise to get into a power struggle with the very person who will be deciding your cases? I wonder what this lawyer’s clients think of this stunt.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:11amIt’s not a crime to dissent! The true measure of liberty is when you defend that which you despise. Just goes to show you that there are people who wish to create a theocracy on all sides of the political spectrum. It seems that there are plenty here on the right that have no problem with their own version of Sharia law.
Report Post »sawdustking
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 12:13pmI guess you weren‘t paying attention to the part about the 1943 Supreme Court ruling that school children can’t be forced to recite the pledge.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 4:04pmHKS -
When I was a child this is what you did or get slapped by the teacher, I still think it’s the right thing to do. Never ever forget. Anything less you need slapped.
You are actually advocating violence against someone who remains silent during the Pledge? Really??? I hope you have your lawyer’s number on speed dial. I suspect you may need it someday.
Report Post »NHABE64
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 6:54pmDamn right the person should have been jailed, this is America bonehead. God bless that Mississippi Judge, she deserves the Nobel Prize more than Nobama.
Report Post »Chet Hempstead
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 5:55amThis judge is jailing people for breaking a law that doesn’t exist. Conservatives always complain about “activist” judges overstepping their authority when they make rulings they don’t like. You can’t get more activist than this loony, even if you sympathize with his patriotism.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:09amGood grief!!!! What is wrong with you? Yes, this IS AMERICA. In our country you don’t have to speak alliegance to anything!!!! There are all sorts of creepy things wrong with this post. Perhaps you have religious point of view that prohibits your swearing an alliegance to a piece of cloth because you feel it is idolitry. Perhaps you feel that the nation is NOT indivisible. There are a growing number of people who believe peaceful secession is the only means to get away from totalitarian government. There are all kinds of reasons.
That someone claims to be a Christian and value freedom and liberty but would advocate making someone recide an oath at the barrell of a gun is not only hypocrisy but on par with Pol Pot.
Some of you people need to reread the constitution, articles of confederation, declaration of independence, the federalist papers, etc.
Report Post »Contrarianthinker
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 6:54pmMuch ado about nothing.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:34pmSince when is the blood of those that gave you the right to a fair trial nothing.
Report Post »Prospero
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:43pmUh, HKS, nobody is bleeding in this courtroom lol! Drama Queen much?
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 8:59amReally? The state demanding that you speak an oath of alliegance as a requirement to be legal resident is no big deal?
I’m so sick of the far right complaining about the statists on the left and turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy of their own positions.
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 3:05pmRothbardian,
The Pledge of Allegiance is a voluntary pledge. When a foreign citizen desires to become an American citizen, they take and OATH of Allegiance.
That oath goes as follows:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.
Please note the words “I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion”. This means that the non-U.S. citizen wished to voluntarily take the oath and the obligations contained therein. No crossed fingers behind the back, no backies. And yes, there have been Quislings.
The Pledge of Allegiance was originally written for an organization like the Boy Scouts to help the participants learn about their citizenship. Two totally different reasons, focuses and purposes.
My major concern here is that if the judge feels he can compel an attorney to recite the Pledge, what about making the attorneys swear allegiance to some other country, like Botswana or some such? What about forcing the attorneys to recite a prayer, like the Our Father, the S’hema or the prayer the Muslims say five times a day? None of those examples would have anything to do with the court case on the docket and would be a violation of the attorney’s civil rights. They are present on behalf of their clients to get a judgment from the court. If they are part of the American Bar Association, they have to be American citizens. And as the lawyer stated, he did not have to recite the Pledge because he was an American citizen who has the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. That includes remaining silent. (On the witness stand, it would be covered by the Fifth Amendment).
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 6:53pmI really can’t see where this has anything to do with the actual court cases on the docket. The attorney was standing and silent, not mocking, not disrepectful. I understand that in a court room, what the judge says is law, but this seems to be taking it too far. There’s got to be some kind of power struggle going on behind the scenes.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:29pmIt’s not about power, It‘s about respect and Honer or maybe you don’t know shat that is.
Report Post »mizflame98
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:42pmsounds like the judge is a psycho.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:48pm“Judge be an American”
Report Post »joseph Fawcett
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:56amI think that everyone in America should be required to take the pleage with the statement “under God”. It should not be an option. If you are going to live, prosper, work, and enjoy the freedom here then that is the least you can do. In a Court of Law is a great place to require the pleage!
http://www.josephfawcettart.com (western artist)
Report Post »PubliusPencilman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 10:33amThat makes perfect sense Joseph. If you are going to continue to live, work and play in freedom, you should be willing to surrender that freedom at the drop of a hat whenever ordered to. Good logic!
There may have been a little sarcasm in the above statement…
Report Post »Taquoshi
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:04pmActually, HKS, I do know about honor and I do know about respect. I also know about the court case where the final ruling was that school students were not to be compelled to recite the pledge (In 1940 the Supreme Court, in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, ruled that students in public schools could be compelled to swear the Pledge.) It is a voluntary pledge. I’ve also witnessed people acting disrespectfully while the Pledge was being recited.
My point is simply that our First Amendment right of freedom of speech also includes the right not to speak. The attorney involved was not being sworn into the court for testimony, nor was the reciting of the Pledge part of the formal court proceedings.
What if the Judge had required everyone to recite the Our Father, or declare that their allegiance was to Botswana or some such other requirement? Many of the people who protest against the Pledge protest it being said in their hearing. Not only do they not want to participate, but they don’t even want to hear it being said by those around them. This, in my humble opinion, is as equally wrong as being required to recite it.
Interesting that although you chose to disagree with me, which is your right, your post also includes a personal attack against me. You might want to think about what that says about you. And before you accuse me of being un-American, I freely recite the Pledge at least four times a week in the course of my job.
Report Post »alaska_juliens
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 6:53pmOne lawyer in jail, that’s a great start.
Report Post »MAULEMALL
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:03pmAint that the truith…
Report Post »solaveritas
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 7:41pmTHE JUDGE IS WRONG. No one can be forced to pledge allegiance to a flag, to a Country (unless it is a CONDITION of naturalization), or to a God. Besides, forced allegiance is worthless.
We are a free people. The judge cannot make law, only apply it. He is not God, King, or dictator in his courtroom.
The Bar Association should seek an investigation under the rules of judicial conduct. This is especially egregious because the judge took away the attorney’s liberty (locked him up).
The attorney can sue and collect damages for violation of his civil rights. The judge may be in deep trouble.
When practicing law in the Midwest, I saw bad attorneys and bad judges, but never saw such a clear Constitutional violation of the inalienable right to liberty like this.
We are a nation of laws, not of men.
Report Post »FreedomOfSpeech
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 8:57pm@alaska_juliens Very true in most cases. I’m generally not a fan of lawyers…until I need one. But it would be nice to live in a world where we did not need them.
I think this judge is a patriot in some respects, but I also think he is wrongheaded. He is a judge, not a king. I might refuse to recite it simply because the judge was telling me I had to. I’d then go home and freely say it.
I think in general our government has too much power. Forcing people to open their mouths and speak in any respect or face jail time seems like a bad idea.
Report Post »jds7171
Posted on October 8, 2010 at 11:01pmHey Solevaritas guess what…..when you are in a judges courtroom its like you are in a dictatorship. The judge is king, general, and god. Whatever he says goes. A judge has the most power in the nation, except its really limited. So if you don’t like having that power over you, then don’t be a dumba$$ and end up in a courtroom.
Report Post »whitaker
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 1:05amI think anyone who works for goverment or in Law should be required to say the pledge, with out “under god” for religious belief or lack of, to show they uphold belief in the country and its laws.
Report Post »joseph Fawcett
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:51amAmen! I hope the trend contiunes that we the people under God reclaim this country and the godless go elsewhere to worship their idols and themselves.
http://www.josephfawcettart.com (western artist)
Report Post »jzs
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 3:00amThat judge won’t be serving much longer.
Report Post »Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:04amWOW!!! I guess freedom only exists so long as it conforms to your view of the world eh? You’re free so long as you do it my way right? That someone can claim to be about freedom and liberty and the constitution in one breath and in the other state that people should be required to say something or face jail time is now on par with the hypocrisy of the left.
I can‘t believe that I have to actually admit that the freakin’ left is right about some things. There are people in our camp who are eriely similar to the taliban or to the statists. Their objectives are different, sure. But their means are indistingquishable.
Report Post »VanGrungy
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 9:27amBy all the comments in support of Dictatorship, I am no longer surprised that the Left claims Far Rightists are Fascist…
Please continue to prove the Left correct…
Remember this is a DEMOCRAT Judge… Forcing a version of patriotism for votes by trying to show he’s patriotic too… Too bad it is forced…
Would this Judge side against ANY foreign litigant who might happen to have to appear in that courtroom?
Would this Judge force a non-American to recite the Pledge?
I still have read ONE good reason to FORCE people to recite the Pledge… The only excuse that appears over and over is “But it’s the Pledge, how can you say no?”
Just because you support the material being forced doesn‘t mean the command isn’t bad…
It’s the Command that we who value freedom take issue with…
Report Post »Spinaltap32
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 10:15amagreed!
Report Post »IowaWoman
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 11:29am1 down 10 million to go
Report Post »OneFunR6
Posted on October 9, 2010 at 2:26pmAmen, and now please pass me the ammunition……..
Report Post »