Two more lower court rulings for the wolves.
[1] The Ninth Circuit upheld the use of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, agreeing schoolchildren in effect are "coerced" to say the Pledge, but the addition of "under God" is just some historical recognition (this is why children affirm we live under a God -- to honor what our founding fathers believed is true) in some patriotic exercise that isn't really religious, so that's acceptable given the ability to opt out while fellow classmates treat you as a loser because of your faith (or lack thereof). This took about 60 pages.
The dissent by the liberal lion of the circuit, one that is so long that it has table of contents, disagrees. He suggests that something added to reaffirm that we "must look to God for divine leadership," has schoolchildren reaffirm something various religious believers don't agree with, is clearly unconstitutional in this context, and it is "most extreme sophistry" to deny it. He also points out that "under God" being added has to be treated separately, just as the Supremes did in another case where the dissent suggested doing so would cause "under God" to fall.
He tosses in a citation of Palin (duly noted, thus one footnote will be a bigger concern of some than the dissent overall) and reminds people what judicial empathy, a "quality that is most desirable in, even if frequently absent from, today’s federal judges at all levels of the judicial system," means. And, adds in a few cites of the writer of the original Pledge and two of his family members noting he would have opposed the addition.* This took about 130 pages.
[2] Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld a trigger lock law and a requirement to obtain a license before carrying a firearm. It noted, not waiting a few months for the Supreme Court to decide the question, in part that as of now, the Second Amendment does not apply to the states. Both rulings were fairly short, one longer given other matters.
The state constitution "recognizes no individual right to keep and bear arms." Though not bothering to note that Heller left open the legitimacy of licensing, one of the two cases decided (accessible here) did note that the Massachusetts law was different from the one struck down in Heller since it (MA) allows guns in the home for self-defense if a suitable trigger lock was attached. It does disagree with Heller dicta on the meaning of Massachusetts Constitution.
And, for some media commentary.
---
* In part:
Bellamy’s great-granddaughter later echoed this sentiment, stating that her “great-grandfather . . . . [was a] deeply religious man, [but] He intended the pledge to be a unifying statement for [our] children. By adding the phrase ‘under God’ to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954, Congress . . . . divided our nation further rather than uniting its citizens.”
The majority opinion disagreed:
The Pledge of Allegiance serves to unite our vast nation through the proud recitation of some of the ideals upon which our Republic was founded and for which we continue to strive: one Nation under God--the Founding Fathers' belief that the people of this nation are endowed by their Creator.
Of course, some of "we" don't strive the ideal that we are a nation under God. Unlike striving for a "republic" (e.g., majority doesn't always rule, courts overrule certain laws they pass), the state favoring an religious ideal and having public schoolchildren recite it, is a constitutional no no. The whole point of establishment is that something specifically religious as compared to something else becomes particularly "patriotic." Thus, citation of the Pledge as some patriotic act only worsens the addition of a specifically sectarian tenet.