Press Conference - Supreme Court Case About Pledge of Allegiance

Federal News Service

HEADLINE: PRESS CONFERENCE WITH SENATOR RICK SANTORUM (R-PA) SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS (R-AL) AND SENATOR JOHN CORNYN (R-TX)

SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT CASE ABOUT PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

BODY:
SEN. SANTORUM: Good afternoon, everybody. We are here today to comment on the "under God" case before the Supreme Court today, having to do with the Pledge of Allegiance, and we wanted to speak in to this moment, because I think it's important that the legislative body be heard on issues of this kind of importance.

One of the core aspects of the founding of this country was religious freedom and the free exercise of religion. And it was a basic understanding of our founders that-and in our founding documents-that the freedom of religion was essential, and that the acknowledge of a creator, the acknowledgement of this country being "under God" was something that was imbued in all of the creating text and all of the speeches, and all of the Founders' speeches and references throughout that period of time, and has been throughout the history of this country. And the idea that somehow or another that the First Amendment Establishment Clause, which historically is obvious as to what its intent was, which was to stop the Church of England from being the Church of the United States, could now quash any reference to God in the public square-is taking language to its nonsensicable extreme.

And we are here basically to speak into this moment, to talk about how we need common-sense judges to be here in the judiciary, to be nominated, and to be approved by this Congress and by the Senate, and to go to the court and to reflect the common-sense language that is in our Constitution and in our laws. And we are concerned about this case being another example of how the courts are completely out of step-the Ninth Circuit showing the case, how out of step they are with the plain language of the Constitution and the plain meaning of the term "under God" within the Pledge of Allegiance. And so I will now turn it over to greater constitutional scholars than I am, both of whom are on the judiciary committee. First John Cornyn-Justice-former Justice John Cornyn.

SEN. CORNYN: If I could, let me defer to Senator Sessions --

SEN. SANTORUM: If you guys want to fight about it, you --

SEN. CORNYN: Go ahead.

SEN. SESSIONS: All right. I was a member of the Senate when the opinion of the Ninth Circuit was rendered. I remember it very vividly that night on the floor. Majority leader-I don't know if he was majority leader then-I'll just say the Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, and Harry Reid, both spoke and were very critical of the Ninth Circuit. And I thought those were a lot of valid points they made, because I have been a very strong critic of the Ninth Circuit. Their opinions have not been sound in my opinion. For a number of years they have the highest reversal rate of any circuit.

But as I said on the floor that night after the spoke, that the matter was bigger than the Ninth Circuit; that the Supreme Court of the United States, through a series of ruling over a period of years, has created a climate of hostility to the free expression of sincere religious belief in public life. And they have said that you can't have a prayer at a football. Well, nobody has to bow their head if they don't want to, but if a group of folks want to have a prayer, who cares about that? Why should that be offensive to other folks?

So, anyway, I feel strongly about that. This Supreme Court has created a situation in which the courts of appeals can get confused. And it's important for them to look carefully at the rulings they've been making, to think carefully about how they are secularizing America in a way that was not intended by our Founders, that is contrary to our legal tradition, except in recent years, and that they need to reestablish a natural, normal respect for religion which the Constitution provides for. It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's's all that court has to deal with as they make a decision.

So I think we are going to see this court challenged. I hope that they will take this as an opportunity to reverse the trends that we are seeing. And where can these trends take us? Well, look what's happening in France. They have ruled in France the government desires to prohibit sincerely religious people from wearing a scarf at school. I think that is a dangerous trend. I hope we are not heading that way. I hope that this court at this point in history will reevaluate how it's been handling these separation of church and state cases and give us some logical and clear guidelines consistent with our heritage and history.

SEN. CORNYN: Well, when Senator Sessions talks about getting some guidance from the United States Supreme Court when it comes to the free exercise of religion, I know he's expressing his hope. But we've been left with sad experience with a court that has rather than expressing neutrality toward the free exercise of religion and religious expression has demonstrated hostility to religious expression in the public square. And it's going to be interesting to see how they get out of this mess that basically the United States Supreme Court has created by such contradictory and conflicting decisions over the years, and really creating an environment where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals now has gone to an extreme that no one really ever would have predicted, but which is perfectly logical, if you look at the path that the United States Supreme Court has laid down when it comes to religious liberty decisions, interpretations of the First Amendment.

As the chair of the Constitution Subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I and the other members of the Constitution Subcommittee filed a friend of the court brief, supporting the pledge and supporting the position of the Elk Grove Unified School District to maintaining the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools, including the statement "under God." And I hope the Court will consider that brief, and will make what I would consider to be the only correct decision they can make.

But this demonstrates once again why it is that this fight that we are having-and I don't know any other way to term it-over who should be confirmed as a federal judge is so important. We're literally talking about what kind of nation America is and what kind of nation we will become, where more and more decisions are taken out of the political arena, where people can debate and we can try to achieve consensus and resolve those differences in Congress and in the political arena, or whether they're going to be simply taken off the table by the courts who think it's their job to tell us what's good for us and to tell us what their political or social agenda may be, and to substitute that for the will of the American people. This is an important debate over judicial confirmation, and unfortunately we've seen this taken to another extreme where we've seen obstruction of a bipartisan majority that stand ready to confirm President Bush's well qualified judicial nominees-something we've never seen before in the history of the republic.

So it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court deals with this, particularly with Justice Scalia not participating in the case. If it breaks out to a four-to-four tie, then that means that the Court of Appeals decision stands, which is going to be-would be a terrible thing indeed. But, as I say, this is a mess that the United States Supreme Court has created by a number of misguided hostile decisions toward the free exercise of religion, and it's going to be interesting to see how they now try to get themselves out of it.

SEN. SANTORUM: Questions?

SEN. SESSIONS: Rick, one thing, just for those of you who are following the issue, Congress passed a statute reaffirming the Pledge of Allegiance as written shortly after this opinion was rendered. I think that has some significance to a Court that respects the legislative branch, because it indicated that it represented our current view that this is appropriate constitutional language, and not just when it was passed, I think in the 1950s.

SEN. SANTORUM: Okay, any questions?

Q Thank you. Do you think the Democrats want to appoint anybody that believes in God? (Laughter.)

SEN. SANTORUM: I'll let you handle that. (Laughter.)

SEN. CORNYN: Well, you know, I know the question was more or less facetious, but what we did see in the confirmation hearing of Bill Pryor, who was the subject of a recess appointment to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals by the president, that he was quizzed extensively about his deeply held beliefs, which really are-unfortunately appear to be code for his deeply held religious beliefs. And it just shows again the sort of hostility that we've seen in Washington, unfortunately, particularly in the confirmation process to people of faith who want to express their religious views. No one is saying that everyone has to do it, but certainly if the Constitution means anything, it means that we each have the freedom of speech, we each have the freedom to express our religious views in the public square, without being harassed or criticized for doing so.

Q Thank you.