Why In The World Would You Have

[if Critics Of The Pledge Of Allegiance Persuaded The Public It Should Be Changed] Then We Could Eliminate Under God From The Pledge Of Allegiance, That Could Be Democratically Done.

Justice White's Conclusion Is Perhaps Correct, If One Assumes That The Task Of A Court Of Law Is To Plumb The Intent Of The Particular Congress That Enacted A Particular Provision. That Methodology Is Not Mine Nor, I Think, The One That Courts Have Traditionally Followed. It Is Our Task, As I See It, Not To Enter The Minds Of The Members Of Congress - Who Need Have Nothing In Mind In Order For Their Votes To Be Both Lawful And Effective - But Rather To Give Fair And Reasonable Meaning To The Text Of The United States Code, Adopted By Various Congresses At Various Times.

The Purpose Of The Federalist Society Was To Bring Together Young People Who Had This Skepticism About What They Were Being Taught And To Let Them Know That There Were Others Who Shared This Skepticism.

If You're Going To Be A Good And Faithful Judge, You Have To Resign Yourself To The Fact That You're Not Always Going To Like The Conclusions You Reach. If You Like Them All The Time, You're Probably Doing Something Wrong.

We Do Him [god] Honor In Our Pledge Of Allegiance, In All Our Public Ceremonies. There's Nothing Wrong With That. It Is In The Best Of American Traditions, And Don't Let Anybody Tell You Otherwise. I Think We Have To Fight That Tendency Of The Secularists To Impose It On All Of Us Through The Constitution.