LAW FROM THE CENTER

From transcripts and secondary sources, it appears that Dr. Michael A. Newdow delivered an eloquent and masterful argument before the U.S. Supreme Court today, even if it fell mostly on deaf ears. Most justices from both sides of the political and ideological aisle expressed extreme skepticism at his hardline stance against the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The highlight of the argument happened when Chief Justice Rehnquist tried to pick apart Newdow's contention that the words "under God" are divisive (story here via NYTimes.com):

For example, when Dr. Newdow described "under God" as a "divisive" addition to the pledge, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist asked him what the vote in Congress had been 50 years ago when the phrase was inserted.

The vote was unanimous, Dr. Newdow said.

"Well, that doesn't sound divisive," the chief justice observed.

"That's only because no atheist can get elected to public office," Dr. Newdow shot back.

The courtroom audience broke into applause, an exceedingly rare event that left the chief justice temporarily nonplussed. He appeared to collect himself for a moment, and then sternly warned the audience that the courtroom would be cleared "if there's any more clapping."

The Times did a good job of capturing the Courtroom moment. However, it appears that nobody did a good job of researching Dr. Newdow's contention. Indeed, it appears that atheists can get elected to very high office. Culbert Olson was elected Governor of California in 1938 and held office for four years. He was raised in the Mormon Church but rejected religion at an early age. After serving as Governor, he served as President of the United Secularists of America. Anyone know of any Federal officeholders who were atheist? NOTE: The Centrist is NOT an atheist, although he rarely wakes up from his drunken hangover early enough to attend church.

UPDATE 1: Amanda Butler of CrescatS spent her Spring Break hearing oral arguments in the Pledge Case. Her extended report of the arguments beats hands down any professional journalism of the case that you will see.

UPDATE 2: Will Baude of CrescatS has this post on this particular exchange between Rehnquist and Newdow.

Still, Supreme Court Justices (especially those who are relatively skeptical about the use of legislative history) should be wary when using 50-year-old history about the actions taken by publicly elected officials during a time of political persecution.

Valid point...they should especially be wary when the attorney (Newdow) makes the crowd laugh with a completely erroneous assertion of history. The fact is, many atheists have been elected, and many many more are probably just going through the motions when they talk about the Almighty.