The early morning release of TAS has an article mentioning the tussle in Massachusetts over the constitutionality of the 'under God' clause in the Pledge of Allegiance. The instant case is brought by the mother of Miss Lisa Newdow, the girl whose life was irrevocably harmed due to her tender little ears hearing the words "under God" in the classroom.

Judge Kenneth W. Starr is representing Sandra Banning, the mother of the child. She reportedly contends that she personally sees no problem with the utterance of the full Pledge in schools. I suppose she's somehow trying to nullify the suit brought by her former husband, but I'm not entirely sure if she's doing this as the mother of the child or as an interested party, or what. Suffice it to say that there is a significant Constitutional component involved, because Judge Starr is her counsel. Whatever the details of the suit, I'm glad someone's fighting this particular battle, and I'm glad that he's the one doing it.

This article says several nice things about the judge, and I wanted to echo them. I've had the pleasure of meeting Judge Starr through the Federalist Society, and I have to say that I was mightily impressed with him. He, like many others I've met in law school, exudes a mighty competence that's almost eerie. It would seem that Judge Starr was hardly the bumbler or the salaciously-interested schoolmarm who bumbled his way through millions of taxpayer dollars and came up with nothing. (This is, of course, somewhat inconvenient for several memes in the recent American political culture, but pay it no mind.)

After having heard Judge Starr speak and a quick conversation with him, I came away with the impression that he was more than competent to perform his duties with regards to the Clinton inquiry. Similarly, I felt certain that the level of success that was achieved was due in large part to his skill as a lawyer. The Clinton legal defense was, in a word, competent. I do not mean by any stretch of the word that the Clinton legal defense had any merit to its claims, but they certainly managed to field some crack troops in defense of the Clinton position. Bottom line is that Judge Starr impressed me with tremendous knowledge of the law and its history, an excellent manner for communication, and a quick wit. I'll mark him as another in an expanding list of men and women I've met in law school who I'd rather not ever face at trial.

Hats off to Judge Kenneth W. Starr for working very hard and quite skillfully in an absolutely thankless role. Best of luck to him in this pending litigation; in my opinion, a victory in this case might serve as a thumbing-of-the-nose to the radical secularists.

Posted by: Country Pundit at 12:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.