- Supreme Court Correspondent for Legal Times and Incisive Media
- Con to the question "Should the Words “under God” Be in the US Pledge of Allegiance?"
“The only way that this reference to God in a student’s daily life can be made constitutionally acceptable is to assert that the two words really have no meaning–that the words ‘under God’ have become so commonplace that they have been stripped of any religious significance. ‘Ceremonial deism’ is how some legal scholars describe it: a rote expression of faith in God that no one listens to or thinks twice about anymore. That is a hollow ‘burn down the village to save it’ kind of argument that does not have much merit. And it ignores the reality that only 49 years ago, the words were inserted into the Pledge with the intention that they be fervently embraced, not blithely ignored.
We will see whether the court sends the public an unpopular but obvious message: ‘Under God’ has to go. Stormy as the reaction will be, the ship of state will survive.”
“‘Under God’ Doesn’t Belong in the Pledge,” Church & State, June 2003
- Theoretical Expertise Ranking:
Individuals and organizations that do not fit into the other star categories.
- Involvement and Affiliations:
- Supreme Court Correspondent, Legal Times
- Supreme Court Correspondent, Incisive Media (acquired American Lawyer Media in Aug. 2007), Jan. 2000-present
- Supreme Court Correspondent, Law.com
- Supreme Court Correspondent, National Law Journal, 2000-present
- Legal Correspondent, First Amendment Center
- Member, Board of Contributors, USA Today
- Member, Steering Committee, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press
- Member, Advisory Board, World Press Freedom Committee
- Supreme Court Correspondent, USA Today, Sep. 1982-Dec. 1999
- Former member, Advisory Board, CAP (Citizen Access Project) Sunshine
- MS, Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism, 1972
- BA, Political Science, Rutgers University, 1971
- None found
- Quoted in: