Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) called the ruling 'absurd'. House members blast prayer ruling

A bipartisan group of 19 House lawmakers demanded Wednesday that the federal government appeal a week-old ruling by a federal judge that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.

“She’s made a decision that seems on its face patently absurd,” said Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), during the hour-long press conference sponsored by the Congressional Prayer Caucus.


U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb ruled in Wisconsin on April 15 that a National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional, violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Members sounded confident that the ruling would fall on appeal in the Seventh Circuit. And Rep. Lincoln Davis (D-Tenn.) said he’s “certain” the Obama administration will issue a proclamation for a National Day of Prayer on May 6, despite the ruling.

The White House had no immediate comment, though it said last week the president planned to mark the day.

The Justice Department has 45 days to decide on an appeal. And spokesman Charles Miller said Wednesday, “No determination has been made as of yet.”

Rep. Todd Tiahart (R-Kan.) and 24 cosponsors have introduced a resolution that would stress a National Day of Prayer does not represent an unconstitutional establishment of religion. It would reaffirm the commitment to an annual prayer day and encourage Attorney General Eric Holder to appeal the ruling.

Still, last week’s surprise ruling has fired up religious conservatives.

“Make no mistake about it, there is a struggle going on in our country over whose sets of values, whose sets of principles are going to prevail: the secular left versus those of us who believe in the Judeo Christian tradition and heritage and truths that are part of that, “ said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio). “My concern is if we don’t prevail on the values debate, we may not have the toughness, the tenacity, what it takes to prevail on the other big challenges: the economic and financial concerns we face, the terrorist threat we face. It is really that important. It’s really that fundamental.”

Another Republican said the ruling shows why judicial nominees need to be studied closely.

“It shows the importance of having someone in the White House who appoints good judges,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.) “This judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter. Need I say anything more? We have to make sure that President Obama does not send someone to the Supreme Court someone’s name this summer who is of the same liberal bent as this judge is.”

Others vigorously argue that the long history of presidential proclamations for prayer does not violate the Constitution because no one is forced to pray.

Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-N.C.) noted that the original law calling for the day says people “may” turn to God on the day chosen by the president.

“It’s not requiring people to do anything,” he said. “It says that they ‘may.’ And I think that three letter word clears it up.”

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) personally criticized the judge for having the gall to overturn two centuries of precedent.

“I’m sure she’s got the best degrees on her wall and all,” he said, “but she is ignorant of our history.”

This article tagged under: Courts

Louie Gohmert