The Circuit Court?s supposed devotion to ?democratic debate? was also conspicuously absent in its Newdow decision. In Newdow, the Ninth Circuit ruled that ?one nation under God? in the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional establishment of religion. It didn?t matter to the court that Americans have democratically debated the role of religion in public life since the founding of the republic. And within these debates they have found some balance between the rights of religious minorities and acknowledging the religious ideas that underlie our common life.

Well, they did work, that is, until courts like the Ninth Circuit cut off debate. Last week?s ruling demonstrates that if there?s anything more objectionable than rule by unelected judges, it?s when those same judges claim to uphold the very principles on which they regularly trample. And it?s another case of ?private? rights?in this case, the right of suicide, a practice offensive to every great religious belief system?trumping the common good. We can only pray that once again the U.S. Supreme Court will overrule these rogue judges on the Ninth Circuit.

For further reading and information:

Wesley J. Smith, ? Euthanizing the CSA ,? National Review Online, 27 May 2004 .

Blaine Harden, ? Oregon assisted-suicide law upheld ,? Seattle Times, 27 May 2004 .

David Kravets, ? Appeals court backs Oregon?s assisted suicide law ,? San Diego Union-Tribune, 26 May 2004 .

Read the ruling on Oregon v. Ashcroft . ( Adobe Acrobat Reader  required.)

Read more news  on Oregon v. Ashcroft from the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide.

Ted Olsen, ? Weblog: Federal Appeals Court Backs Ore. Assisted Suicide ,? Christianity Today, 28 May 2004 .

Arthur J. Dyck, Life?s Worth: The Case against Assisted Suicide (Eerdmans, 2002).

BreakPoint Commentary No. 040324, ? Citizenship ?Under God?: The Pledge and the Court .?

Mitch Muncy, ed., The End of Democracy?  (Spence, 1997).