Terry Everett, October 3, 2005

The nation's high court was in the Congressional spotlight last week as lawmakers took actions that will impact the future direction of the Supreme Court, and possibly influence the outcome of a controversial case challenging the constitutionality of the official acknowledgement of God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Among the news headlines of the last seven days was the Senate's 78-22 confirmation vote of John Roberts as the 17th chief justice of the United States. Roberts, who replaced the late William Rehnquist, will be the youngest chief justice in two centuries. As such, he will be in a position to shape the court's rulings for many decades to come.

Regarded by many as having a brilliant legal mind, Justice Roberts made clear in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee two weeks ago that he would approach all decisions with fairness and evaluate each on its own merits. Ironically, he was widely criticized by liberals for his refusal to give personal opinions on issues or predict how he would rule on hypothetical future cases.

During the 1993 confirmation of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton nominee, she too avoided comment on her personal views. Despite her silence on issues during the hearings process, Justice Ginsberg was confirmed by a much greater margin (96-3). It is interesting that twelve years ago Congressional liberals had no problem with her silent stance.

With the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts now history, President Bush is preparing to submit his recommendation to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. While at the time of this column no official nominee had been revealed, a number of female and minority candidates have been discussed in the media, including two Alabama natives: Judge Janice Rogers Brown of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and Judge Edith Brown Clement of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Brown was born in Greenville, while Clement hails from Birmingham.

Last week, the U.S. House of Representatives also focused its attention on possible future action of the Supreme Court by passing a resolution calling on the court to quickly determine that the use of the Pledge of Allegiance in schools is not in violation of the Constitution.

In 2002, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case Newdow v. U.S. Congress that reciting the Pledge in public schools is unconstitutional since its words "under God" violate the Constitution's prohibition of establishing a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the case on a technicality. However, it has resurfaced in the form of a September 14 U.S. District Judge ruling in Sacramento that again stated the recitation of the Pledge in public schools is unconstitutional. This controversial ruling followed an earlier ruling this year by the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond upholding a student's right to say the Pledge.

Congress has repeatedly expressed its support for keeping the words "under God" in the Pledge and I was pleased to add my voice to last week's resolution reaffirming this position. Simply stated, the words "under God" are no more unconstitutional than "In God We Trust" which is emblazoned upon our currency, or the phrase "so help me God" in the presidential oath of office. It is hoped that the new Supreme Court will quickly grant the Pledge the protection it deserves once and for all.

Congressman Terry Everett, a Republican, represents Alabama's Second Congressional District, which includes the state capitol, Montgomery.