I’m a little ambivalent about this – lawyers generally know that certain judges have their peculiar ways of running court that you better follow. A judge also has the responsibility to set the rules by which all parties are to follow in order to ensure that a trial runs in a neutral fashion. Had had he allowed the lawyer not to follow his instruction, it may have set bad precedent for the remainder of the trial.
On the other hand, attorneys are generally required to take a loyalty oath to both the state and federal constitutions to be admitted to the bar…so this seems redundant. Also – I don’t see how holding an attorney in contempt for a small infraction will make the trial more neutral rather than privelege the party not represented by that attorney.
But I’d like to know what the attorney was objecting to…considering that they have already taken a similar oath, was it something like the “under god” bit? If so, was it necessary to refuse the entire pledge – or was there a reason not to do a “line-item” pledge?
There are some interesting issues that this raises that I don’t think allow us to draw hard lines.