The Supreme Court left the door open for Michael Newdow to bring his case again, since they threw out his case on the basis of his lack of standing (he is not the legal guardian of his daughter) and refused to address the specifics of his case. The District Court rightly relied on the precedent of the 9th Circuit’s previous ruling in his case, and entered an injunction against Elk Grove schools to prohibit the use of the “under God” language. Newdow refiled the case including two additional families as plaintiffs, where there’s no issue of standing to allow the case to be thrown out on a similar technicality this time. This will go back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which will most likely rule the same way (thus making “under God” unconstitutional throughout the 9th Circuit), then get appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we will find out what John G. Roberts really meant when he said (near the end of Day 2 of his confirmation hearings) that he believes that the First Amendment protects the rights of nonbelievers as well as one religious sect against another (unlike Scalia, who said in his dissent in McCreary that government can endorse belief over nonbelief): DURBIN: Let me just wrap this up by asking – I think you’ve alluded to this – is it your belief that what we are trying to establish in the constitutional protection on the exercise of religion is not only to protect minorities, religious minorities, but also nonbelievers? ROBERTS: Yes. The court’s decisions in that area are quite clear. And I think the framers’ intent was as well; that it was not their intent just to have a protection for denominational discrimination. It was their intent to leave this as an area of privacy apart – a conscience from which the government would not intrude. ...

Today’s Washington Post reports that The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. The new doctrine has not yet been approved by Rumsfeld. Designed for Iran and North Korea? ...

Clint Bolick and Alan Dershowitz have written two very different–yet only occasionally directly contradictory–rememberances of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. Bolick, in a piece distributed by the Goldwater Institute and published in the Arizona Republic, describes Rehnquist as a conservative, moderating influence on a liberal court, advocating state’s rights, school choice, and presiding over a court that has been “usually (though less frequently lately) siding with individual liberty over state power.” Dershowitz, on the other hand, in a piece published on the Huffington Post, describes Rehnquist as a bigot who enjoyed racist and anti-Semitic jokes, who defended the “separate but equal” doctrine in Plessy v. Ferguson as a law clerk for Justice Jackson, and who began his legal career as a Republican thug who obstructed African-American and Hispanic voters at Phoenix polling places. Bolick gives a more nuanced view that actually addresses more of Rehnquist’s work on the court (though less than I would have expected), while Dershowitz emphasizes evidence of Rehnquist’s personal character which mostly derives from before he was on the Supreme Court. I was surprised that Bolick didn’t mention some of the recent cases (such as Raich v. Ashcroft and Kelo v. New London) where Rehnquist voted for liberty (and was unfortunately in the minority). Yet I have no doubt that there is accuracy in both descriptions. Bolick has in the past seen people as defenders of liberty who have done much to destroy it, such as former Attorney General John Ashcroft. Dershowitz alternatively takes courageous stands in defense of liberty and crazy stands which oppose it. One area where I was less than impressed with Rehnquist was on religious liberty, specifically for nonbelievers. He (like the majority) went the wrong way on Elk Grove v. Newdow (the Pledge of Allegiance “under God” case) and (unlike the majority) the wrong way on the McCreary County v. ACLU case (Ten Commandments display in a Kentucky courtroom which included a written statement that the display was “in remembrance and honor of Jesus Christ, the Prince of Ethics”).

Tomorrow’s featured article on Wikipedia is “Space Opera in Scientology Doctrine," a very well-written entry that tells you pretty much all you need to know about Scientology’s cosmology. Oh, the entry on Xenu is also a good one.

The apocalyptic-sounding NOAA bulletin that was released Sunday morning which Brian Williams described on tonight’s Daily Show may be found online here.

Chris Roller’s web site (www.mytrumanshow.com), aside from being a guided tour through a profoundly disturbed–though mostly harmless–mind, is immensely entertaining. He updates it often, so it pays to visit it every couple of months. Especially funny is the clip he’s provided of a segment (an amazingly long one, considering the ridiculous subject matter) that some Entertainment Tonight clone did on his $50,000,000 suit against David Copperfield for “using his Godly powers” without his permission. You can tell they were skirting along the edge of blatantly making fun of him. Roller must be a real trip to be around. ...

Here’s an interesting first-hand account of trying to get out of New Orleans from a couple of socialist paramedics from San Francisco who were attending a conference. This account is critical of both the federal and local responses, but praises spontaneous individual order that kept being stifled by the officials. Lippard (2006-12-09): Elements of this account have now made the New York Times, the Arizona Republic, and elsewhere:http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0910katrina-flee10.html ...

Here’s a great photo, via James Redekop on the SKEPTIC mailing list. Historical Comments Einzige (2006-12-09): Finally! We have some truth in news media!Do you think that might have been intentional? (Having worked in television briefly, I would strongly suspect so)Actually, my question reminds me of the Howard Stern show this morning, where Howard was conjecturing that Rush Limbaugh's slip of the tongue--"Mayor Nager"--wasn't so much a slip as an attempt to "out-conservative" all the other right-wing talk radio jerks.You just know this picture is going to be making the email rounds for the next few days... ...

DHS/FEMA hired a Baton Rouge company called IEM to develop a “catastrophic hurricane disaster plan for New Orleans & Southeast Louisiana” in June 2004. IEM has now edited this from their website, apparently in embarrassment. After this was pointed out in the blogosphere, IEM restored the press release.

Denyse O’Leary (an appallingly bad journalist who blogs in favor of Intelligent Design) wrote that she won’t become an internal critic of ID because she opposes the “academic fascism” of ID critics. I find that an appallingly weak justification for being a propagandist. Internal criticism tends to strengthen the quality of arguments and evidence, not weaken them–unless, of course, what you’re advocating is false. Einzige (2006-12-09): Are there any pro-IDers who are critical of other pro-IDers? ...