After Losing the Massachusetts Pledge Case, Would the Atheist Side Have Done Anything Differently?

[rug]

May 13, 2014
By Hemant Mehta

David Niose (below) represented the plaintiffs in the recent case to stop the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in Massachusetts. The Supreme Judicial Court ruled against him, unfortunately, and yesterday, Niose reflected on whether he would have done anything differently:

In the wake of this outcome, it’s natural to ask if there is anything that we would do differently. Honestly, not much. Our briefs were extremely strong, directly addressing every issue and shooting down every argument from the other side (including those upon which the court ultimately based its decision). Experts who reviewed our briefs repeatedly told us how impressed they were with our case (including a former high court clerk, who said our briefs were among the most impressive he had ever seen). If we made a miscalculation, it was in not anticipating that the court would expect bullied children before it would grant relief — but frankly, that has never been the standard in Massachusetts for other minorities.

My worry is that if the SJC needs a bullied child before it’ll reconsider the recitation of the Pledge, it won’t be long before they have what they want. To force children to go against the grain and remain seated or leave the room during a “patriotic exercise” just paints them as outsiders. No child should have to wear that label against their will.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/05/13/after-losing-the-massachusetts-pledge-case-would-the-atheist-side-have-done-anything-differently/

36:24 video of the oral argument here:

http://www2.suffolk.edu/sjc/archive/2013/SJC_11317.html

[TexasProgresive]

1. Considering the makeup of the current court

Bringing cases that are sure to be a 5/4 decision against with the 5 being the usual puke suspects is a strategic error. It doesn't matter how good your oral argument is and now this ruling is the law of the land.

[rug]

2. This applies only to Massachussetts.

Its Supreme Judicial Court has seven members and the decision was unanimous.

[djean111]

3. You know what is frightening, as well as reeks?

"The inclusion of a brief, ceremonial prayer as part of a larger exercise in civic recognition suggests that its purpose and effect are to acknowledge religious leaders and the institutions they represent, rather than to exclude or coerce nonbelievers," Kennedy said.

Bullshit. There is no need to do this. In fact, if so, why not give a shout-out to local businesses, etc? why the need to acknowledge only religious institutions?
It is a bad decision, and iMO Obama should have said nothing, rather than agree with them.