Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

[wicket]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=558&e=1&u=/ap/20040614/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pledge_of_allegiance

The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance Monday, ruling that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath.

The procedural ruling did not directly address whether the pledge recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

[Cicero]

1. So, in other words, the SC punted.

They maybe could have issued a ruling, one way or the other, but instead passed on a technicality.

:eyes:

Later,

[DavidMS]

83. Concidering the climate

I feel that Passing on a technicality is a good thing.

Its too close to an election and if the fundies are ruled against it will be one more reasion for them to go to the polls. If we are rulled against, it will energise our base but we will have an assinine decision on the books. For a decision like this it better be 9-0. There is just too much riding on it at the moment.

Of cource I would like a rulling that 'God' should stay in Church.

[Tina H]

110. actually, if the relevant state family law

did not give standing, the Supremem Court should not undo that (bad) state law, just so it can decide an (admittedly important) Constitutional issue. The kind of flexibility suggested in your reply does not and should not exist (because it harms state autonomy to make family law).

Assuming the Supreme Court *genuinely* believed that state law compelled their result, they should have considered themselves bound by state law here, regardless of how bad the state law is.

That said, after Bush v. Gore, I have a much harder time believing that the Supreme Court is candid and sincere in its opinions. I suspect they created a state law issue here where there really was none, but I simply don't know for sure.

[BOHICA06]

2. I didn' think "DodgeBall"

came out till next week!

[chimpy the poopthrower]

3. wrong headline

It's "Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge"

[wicket]

6. I just changed it

Yahoo changed it from the time I first posted it

[chimpy the poopthrower]

11. Both headlines are misleading anyway.

The only issue here was his custody and therefore his right to bring a suit on his daughter's behalf. The Court didn't make any judgements regarding the phrase "under God".

[BlueEyedSon]

4. F*&K F*&K F*&K

Separation of church and state, please!!!

[Almost_there]

24. The Supremes found the easy way out, but...

Actually, just to clarify something, it isn't "seperation of Church and State", I believe it is the establishment clause, which is interpreted as the seperation of Church and State. The establishment clause actually states that The Government shall establish no religion. Just a fine point, but, something to chew on.

I could be wrong, but, I have been told repeatedly that such things as Federal holidays for religious observance are fine, because the Gov't does nothing to promote the establishment of any one religion, which is of course a load of crap, but, there ya go. I think even if this comes back to the USSC, they will turn it down, citing God appearing on money etc, and the "non religious" connotations that God has come to represent. :shrug:

~Almost

[TheWraith]

38. Not quite.

The phrase, as best I can quote it from memory, is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It has nothing to do with establishing a religion, it means the the Congress (and by extention, the rest of the government) is forbidden from doing anything which 'respects' or otherwise endorses a religious 'establishment,' whether that is a particular doctrine or simply vague religious permeations like the pledge. Take it from Jefferson, who said that by ratifying the First that the people had built "A wall of seperation between Church and State," which is where the phrase comes from.

[robertpaulsen]

58. Your post reminds me of a great bumper sticker

One Nation Under Democracy, Goddammit!

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

7. What happens after the custody fight is settled?

Suppose he retains "sufficient" custody in the end -- can he resume his lawsuit? Would he have to go back to square one? Lawyers, please weigh in.

[MadinMD]

12. Back to square one

Back to square one....


He really should have known better than to start this case. Isn't he a lawyer? He really should have known this. Anyone with half a brain and a minor knowledge of how the Supreme Court works could have seen this decision a mile away. All your ducks have to be in a row before they'll do anything.

[Tina H]

33. Disagree

Mr. Nedow's case does two good things:

1. brings attention to the fact that the pledge is indeed somewhat vulnerable to legal attack. I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect there are more pledge suits now (maybe even a lot more) than when Mr. Nedow started his suit.

2. brings attention to the plight of non-custodial parents, especially those who pay child support. I don't think that Mr. Nedow should lose the right to bring the type of suit he brought just because he is the non-custodial parent. Maybe he should lose this right if he were a deadbeat parent, but non-payment of support does not seem to be the basis of today's SCOTUS decision.

[Ludicrous]

66. Non-custodial parents rights

Let's think this through, shall we?
If they let Newdow sue on his daughter's behalf, a precedent is set.
Now what's to stop every non-custodial parent from suing the custodial parent "on behalf of the child"?

Obviously, the SCOTUS made the right decision.
We can't discard logic in the pusuit of ideals.

[Tina H]

108. not being awarded custody is not supposed to be a punishment, generally

Your reply does not seem to understand that.

If only one parent maintains rights to sue on behalf of the child, then maybe it should be the non-custodial parent *only*. This rule would keep the non-custodial parent engaged and involved in the pursuit of the child's best interests, even though circumstances do not allow custody to be shared. Non-custodial parebnts should not be regarded as mere ATM machines, but that is exactly the way your post regards them.

[Mithras61]

8. Gee, I must be extra stupid today...

Doesn't a parent have the legal authority to speak for a minor child? If not, who does?

[MadinMD]

10. not

Not if they lost legal custody in other Court proceedings.

[Mithras61]

13. True, but at the time of the original filing...

didn't he have at least joint-custody? As far as I know, his parental rights haven't been terminated...

As another tidbit relating to all this, one of the sites I found pointed out, though, his daughter claims to be a christian, and regularly attends church with her mother and believes in a christian god.

Of course, my son says the same thing when he attends church with his maternal grandmother, but says not when he talks to my parents, who are agnostics.

I personally don't teach religion one way or the other. I've told my son that I hold religious beliefs that are quite personal, and that I encourage him to explore the topic and that I'll be happy to discuss it with him if he wants to go into it further.

[Almost_there]

25. I don't think he had custody from the beginning

I think that was the problem that the Gov't came to rely on, was that he never had "sufficient custody" of his daughter, from the start he was acting from teh outside, and that is what made the initial rulings so controversial. I could be wrong, but, there ya have it.

[Mithras61]

How much is "sufficient"?

I would think that if his parental rights haven't been terminated, then he is legally her father and has a legal interest in her upbringing. It shouldn't really matter if it was joint custody. If her mother had been granted sole custody, which would make it somewhat unusual that he would have visitation rights, which he appears to have had, I suppose that he may have had no standing, but (at least in TX) joint custody implies that the parent who doesn't have posession still has rights in areas such as medical care, religious upbringing, etc.

[Frodo]

44. I don't think it's an issue of "parental interest"

I haven't read the decision, but it seems pretty clear that he was suing on her behalf. Since she's a minor, only he legal gurdian can sue FOR her.


Seems they did him a favor by letting his arguments be heard. At least it gets a foot in the door.

[Ludicrous]

67. Figure it out

WOW!
Sounds like your son is in need of some guidance.
You've left him to blow in the breeze, trying to please the audience.
Kids need the tools and parental support to form their religious beliefs.
But I guess you prefer the "figure it out for yourself" approach.
You should really take a position one way or the other. Seeing you do that might give him the backbone to define his beliefs.

[PassingFair]

90. Wow, you've got some nerve, ludicrous

Sounds like his son is getting great guidance. Sounds like his son is getting sound science. Sounds like his son will make determinations for himself about the mysteries of the universe.
Then, he can set out to understand them, just appreciate the mysteries, or MAYBE he can make up his mind to believe in supernatural causes and omnipotent beings that will handily and without a shred of evidence tie everything up for him a nice little noose.
He IS taking a position. Shame on you.

[MadinMD]

9. You know, it's really good policy

The guy didn't have standing. Flat out, he shouldn't have been in court in the first place. When the Supreme Court can avoid making a decision on a Constitutional basis, it should.

It made the right decision here.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

15. Why the animosity?

MadinMD didn't say whether (s)he agreed or disagreed with the basic premise of the suit.

[MadinMD]

17. I'll be an attorney

I'll be an attorney in about 24 hours when I have to drive my butt all the way down to the Court of Special Appeals in Annpolis to get sworn in (I never leave Baltimore).

I agree that the case had merit on its face, but sadly, it should have been thrown out long before, exactly on this standing issue. When I first heard of the California ruling, I wondered why they didn't throw it out on the standing issue in the first place. Really, it was just poorly planned litigation, if you want something to make it through the Supreme Court EVERYTHING must be proceedurally perfect.


Sorry for any spelling mistakes, just trying to fit this in in-between hearings.

[tabasco]

19. Congrats!

My grand dad called it the Court of Apple Peels. He was a MD lawyer and so am I.

[Freddie Stubbs]

21. The funny thing is

the plaintiff is an attorney himself, and should have known better.

[TahitiNut]

18. Since when does loss of custody imply the loss of all parental interest?

This USSC decision reeks of excess and may serve to undermine safeguards and protections of children of divorced parents. A custody assignation of the Family Court cannot and should not be interpreted as the suspension or termination of all parental rights as this decision seems to imply. The claim of loss of all standing as a parent is reprehensible and shows how a "conservative" Court is really, at its core, a blindly ideological Court.

[bloom]

20. I agree

I think it has negative ramifications in regards to parents having an interest in their children's lives. Custody should not be an issue here.

[Red State Rebel]

23. From what I've read...

The daughter and custodial mother are actually not athiest and the daughter had no objection to reciting the pledge as it was.

Since he was not the custodial parent and she did not object, he had no basis to bring the case.

I'll try to find the link to that info...it's been a while.

[Almost_there]

26. I believe you hit the nail on the head...

If I recall the case, it happened exactly as you said it. The daughter and mother do not object to saying or hearing the pledge, and since he had no custody, I would guess it would be like an attorney filing a suit on behalf of someone that hadn't retained him. You need a client to sue, right? It almost seems to me that this could also be a bit of the custody battle creeping into this, a little "take this, b*tch!" to his wife.

[Tina H]

111. What a fucking sexist assumption this reply makes!

Your reply ought to be ashamed of itself. There is no reason to believe that Mr. Nedow would call his ex-wife a "bitch" any more than there is reason to believe that the ex-wife calls the Mr. nedow nasty names. In other words, absent some real evidence, we shouldn't assume the worst about either party, but we especially should avoid making these assumptions in a sexist manner as this reply does.

[TahitiNut]

30. The mother is a "born again" ... a mindset that led to their estrangement.

The daughter was not of an age (age of reason) where her opinion was material. I don't doubt that the religious indoctrination of the daughter is no small part of what's happened.

[Ludicrous]

69. How do you know?

"The mother is a "born again" ... a mindset that led to their estrangement."
How do you know this? Were you involved with this couple before their break-up?

[TahitiNut]

78. Pastor Chuck Smith of Calvary Chapel in Costa Mesa, Calif.

According to Smith, the second-grader and her mother, Sandra Banning, not only attend Calvary Chapel at Laguna Creek in their home town of Elk Grove, Calif., but Banning teaches Sunday School there.

Newdow has been interviewed, not only on CNN and the commercial cable networks, but on CSPAN and PBS. I merely present what I've learned from those interviews and the some more in-depth web articles I've read.

[Tina H]

35. the rights of parents are not contingent on what 8 or 9 year old . . .

children say they want. Nor should the rights of non-custodial parents be contingent on this either.

Exception: unless the non-custodial parent did something bad that caused loss of custody). I haven't heard of any bad thing that Mr. Nedow did to lose custody. Maybe he lost custody because of his work schedule and the concommitant financial support that a busy work schedule can provide.

[Red State Rebel]

37. Since the custody battle is ongoing,

They decided he did not have sufficient custody to represent his daughter's interest in court. I think in a case like this, basically what they are saying is both parents cannot represent the child from opposite ends of the same argument so since custody hasn't been decided, he has no standing yet as a legal representative of the child.

Once custody is settled, it could be a different story.

[Tina H]

52. what I am trying to say . . .

is that custody should not generally matter and it should not matter in the Nedow case.

Parents may have conflicting views about the well being of their children, regardless of whether there is a custody dispute or not and regardless of how any custody issues are ultimately resolved.

If custody is taken away for child abuse reasons or something, then yeah, terminate all parental rights.

However, assuming that Mr. Nedow has done nothing wrong, he should be allowed to bring lawsuits on behalf of his children as any parent would. This should be true whether Nedow is: (a) ultimately awarded full custody, (b) ultimately awarded joint custody, (c) ultimately awarded no custody, or (d) has his custodial rights determined definitively only sometime after his child's 21st birthday.

Whatever rule it is that automatically disqualifies non-custodial parents from bringing law suits is a bad rule. It hurts the non-custodial parent, and, more importantly, it hurts the child.

[Ludicrous]

70. Custody absolutely matters!

If the Court allowed this precedent to be set, any non-custodial parent could sue any entity (including the custodial parent) "on behalf of the child"


Think of the millions of frivolous lawsuits that would result of such a decision.

[TahitiNut]

79. "frivolous lawsuits"?? Yes, as we all know ....

... it's far more important to run the courts efficiently than to allow them thar "frivolous lawsuits" to clutter up the far more important things like ... uhh ... what would that be, exactly?

[Tina H]

109. good, then we cut the custodial parent's rights to bring suits

if bringing suits is so important to the custodial parent, then they can hand custody to the other parent and *only then* bring their suit.

This would ensure that the suits brought would be non-frivolous. A parent, operating under this new proposed rule, would only bring suits they felt *relly* strongly about becuase they would have to lose custody as a pre-condition to the suit.

I am being somewhat facetious here, but the logic for my new, proposed rule is just as compelling to me (and for the same reasons) as a rule forbidding non-custodial parents to bring suits. In other words, neither rule seems fair, wise or in the best interests of the child.

By the way, I do not consider Mr. Nedow's suit to be frivolous or counterproductive for his child. It is about time that someone brought a suit like that. Go, non-custodial parent lawsuits, go!

[PurityOfEssence]

65. The daughter is a minor; she has no legal say in the matter

It's the accepted belief that parents have the legal voice for their children, and unless some child safety entity removes them (or one of them) from the picture, they remain so. It's a tricky issue, certainly, but it's once again reinforcement that belief is "better", and all societal energies will be bent upon subtly reinforcing that.

There's belief, there's non-belief, and there's neutrality. What Newdow wants is mere neutrality, but somehow that's an encroachment on the societal mindset. He's not demanding to put into the pledge that "there's no such thing as god", he's merely attempting to remove a divisive statement that leads one--especially a YOUNG one--to believe that god is fact.

In a situation where he's already not enjoying custody, this is bullying of the majority.

Legally, it doesn't matter what the daughter believes in. It doesn't matter what the mother believes in. It matters that either of the parents is having his/her daughter exposed to coercive assumptions presented as fact. If their faith is strong enough, they should be able to muddle by without having to strong arm everyone else into pronouncing agreement with their guess.

[Almost_there]

86. If he doesn't have custody, he has virtually no say.

I see where you're coming from, but, at the same time, if we allow him to sue on behalf of his daughter, against the wishes of his "most time" guardian, what is to stop anyone from challenging the "most time" guardian on anything? Let's say that I get to see my child every other weekend, and my child tells me that mommy is taking her to Church, or to the amusement park, or a PG movie, or Burger King to eat beef, and I disagree with any of these things. Can I sue to stop my ex from "brainwashing" my kid? Can I sue Burger King for making my child fat, even though my ex brought the kid there?

I actually think this was the correct decision. I am assuming (yeah yeah) that she had majority if not virtually sole custody of this girl (for argument's sake) and therefore, his right had been forfeit (even if under appeal) to argue on his daughter's upbringing. If I am a strict vegetarian, and my ex thinks it fine to give my child a hamburger, and I DON'T HAVE CUSTODY, I have virtually no say in that. Sorry. As much as a cop out as it was for the USSC, they ruled correctly. But, better to leave the door open than to close it permanently.

~Almost

[PurityOfEssence]

107. He still has visitation rights and has a say in her upbringing

We're also talking about the government here: that's what's at the heart of his case. Does the government have an obligation to the Constitution to make sure it isn't representing the concept of "god" as a fact? Yes, it does. That it does this to impressionable children is really out of line.

The issue at hand--unfortunately--is whether he has the right to speak for his child. In reality, he never was speaking for his child as much as he was speaking for his own rights to protect his child from concepts he finds dangerous or offensive. Unless he has NO rights of visitation or any rights of influence at all, he has a legal voice in the raising of his child. It's as simple as that.

Must all grievances be to the extent of bodily harm or death before they become an issue? Life is untidy, and most things are a question of degrees.

He has a right as a private citizen to bring a lawsuit on this subject EVEN IF HE DIDN'T HAVE ANY CHILDREN; he can say that the illegal inculcation of beliefs into children in PUBLIC SCHOOLS is affecting his life. It is. Plenty of children are reminded constantly that there definitely is a god, and the government firmly states that it is a fact and an indispensable one at that.

Regardless of anything, it is absolutely against Article One of the Bill of Rights. The prohibition isn't against establishing or endorsing any particular religion, it's about he concept of religion itself. As such, affirming that there definitely is this whatever-it-is is specifically off limits.

Back to the narrow issue of the moment, he DOES HAVE AN INTEREST AND COURT-GRANTED INFLUENCE IN HIS CHILD'S LIFE. Even though he doesn't have primary custody doesn't mean that he can't speak for her. On weekends when she's in his charge, he can speak for her in any legal sense that a guardian does for a minor in his/her charge.

On a Dickensian level: here's a guy who is having the illegal endorsement of the government further drive the wedge into his already fractured family; the mother and daughter are Christians, and not only has he less influence in his child's life due to the custody situation, the government is meddling in her upbringing in a way THAT IT IS SPECIFICALLY NOT SUPPOSED TO. What screaming horseshit.

(I'm not angry at you; I'm just disgusted by the whole thing. Much of the country breathed a sigh of relief today, knowing that we can avoid dealing with something unpleasant. The tacit understanding is that non-believers are grotesquely inferior and don't warrant any redress in this society; today was a victory for theocracy, immaturity and group tyranny.)

[Frodo]

41. What's "parental interest"?

I've never heard that as a legal term before.

His problem is that he can't sue as himself, but because she's a minor, he was suing FOR her. A non-custodial parent can't do that.

[Kadie]

22. If it was that simple,

the why did the court agree to hear him in the first place? :shrug:

[Frodo]

43. Because the decision had gone the other way.

To not grant cert in this case would amount to a final win for the guy they just said had no standing to bring the laswsuit in the first place.

Had the 9th circuit ruled against him and he appeled to the SC - THEN they would have denied the appeal.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

46. Are you a lawyer?

I'm trying to get some legal perspectives here. Lucky777 claims to be a law professor but asks "First, why take the case only to dismiss on procedural grounds?" What you're saying seems to make more sense to me, but I'm not a lawyer...

[Redhead488]

47. Even law professors

are wrong sometimes...

[Frodo]

48. No

But the facts are fairly straightforward on this one. And, of course, the eight people who ruled unanimously have something a bit higher than "professor" on their resume' (no offense intended).

I think what (s)he's saying is that they could have overturned the decision without a hearing. Deny cert AND overturn on "standing" grounds.

That's just incredibly rare. The ninth circuit is overturned more than any other circuit, but they deserve at least SOME respect. They can't just come in and say "you don't have a clue" without at least a hearing. Besides, it was the only way Newdow was going to be heard at a national level.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

50. ok

Thanks for the information!

[Pachamama]

27. The SC left the door open for a similiar suit n/t

[pansypoo53219]

16. HA HA

now georgie can't use it for campaigns.

[mefoolonhill]

29. court ruling

Politically speaking, we might be better off with this ruling in the short term. A Supreme Court decision to strike God from the Pledge of Allegiance would inflame the fundies and bring more of them to the polls in November. Bush would play this for all it's worth.

[villager]

60. right...

...this takes it off the agenda for fall...

[Pachamama]

28. Hopefully this "punt" was to soften the blow on the Bush Admin. when SC

..rules against them on the enemy combatant case....

[lucky777]

31. Law Prof Perspective: This is an Insane Decision

I'm a law professor who is very familiar with this case. The Sup Ct decision is totally insane. They did not even hear serious argument on the procedural issue, and now they make it the basis of their decision. This is final proof that the Sup Ct is worthless. What a bunch of pussies -- they are just figureheads and empty bureaucrats in Batman capes.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

32. Can you give us a little more perspective? (nt)

[lucky777]

36. I judged the moot court arguments on this case . . .

as it was argued by dozens of teams, so I have heard all the angles and arguments. There was always a possibility of the Sup Ct dismissing the case on procedural grounds, but no one thought it would happen. First, why take the case only to dismiss on procedural grounds? Second, he obviously has a daughter and is concerned with what happens to her, so he clearly has some kind of standing (the 'lack of standing' argument would work if the child was a cousin or unrelated to the plaintiff, but not here). Finally, the oral argument did not even discuss the procedural issue for more than a minute, and it wasn't very heavily briefed by the parties.

In my mind this is up there with Bush v Gore -- it shows how reactionary the Court has become. They always seem to side with the existing structures and beliefs.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

39. but Bush v Gore was 5-4

This was 8-0. I don't know. I'd like to think that Breyer, Ginsberg, etc. would not just dismiss in order to avoid the political fallout. You ask why did they even take the case to begin with if they were going to dismiss, but don't courts take cases all the time that they end up dismissing? Also, is it true that Newdow is "back to square one" on this? If he wins custody, does he have to go back through the entire court system again?

[DoNotRefill]

62. being concerned doesn't grant standing....

you need to go back and reread Lujan. Being concerned as to what happens has NEVER been grounds for standing.

BTW, where do you teach law? Is it a 4th tier school?

[lucky777]

74. I think my credentials are pretty good, how about yours?

I was Phi Beta Kappa from Oberlin, J.D. from Northwestern, worked in corporate law at a top Chicago firm for years, got a PhD in Philosophy from Loyola University, published a peer-reviewed book on law and philosophy, plus over a dozen law review articles (mostly peer-reviewed), I have handled federal and state cases, most recently winning a First Amendment case in the 7th Circuit, I had a fellowship at the ACLU after graduating where I worked on abortion cases that went to the Sup Ct. I've taught at Florida State, Miami, Lewis & Clark, and Chicago-Kent law schools. I do now teach at a 4th tier school, but you should know how hard it is to get a tenure-track teaching position -- since some 60% of the profs are from Harvard, Yale, and Stanford.

What are your credentials?

[DoNotRefill]

84. Thanks for that admission....

"I do now teach at a 4th tier school"

BWAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!

:evilgrin:

[lucky777]

89. Answer the question: what are your credentials?

You put my credentials into question. Now let's hear yours.

"Evil grin" is not an answer.

I think I know a fair bit about the Supreme Court. One of my best friends clerked for Ginsburg; I've met Stevens in person; my moot court opponent from law school days clerked for Rehnquist; a very close friend whose office is two doors down from mine wrote the definitive book on Clarence Thomas. I just worked on a response to a cert application in a case I was handling in the 7th circuit. I think I have a pretty good idea of how these people are thinking, how they decide cases.

[DoNotRefill]

93. I choose not to divulge my credentials

in a way that would make it easy for people to identify me. Needless to say, I am a J.D., and graduated from a 1st tier school. That's as far as I'm willing to go. Considering the Misanthrope bit a few days ago, I DO so hope you can understand. If you don't understand, well, too farking bad.

I've had friends and classmates that clerked for some pretty famous people, including a couple of people who are Supreme Court Justices.

In most legal circles, "the Supreme Court is insane" is generally not seen as a particularly astute line of legal thought.

BTW, you don't happen to teach at Regent, do you? ;)

[Almost_there]

88. I missed something...

Lucky, I am not questioning your credentials, anyone with a law degree and a professor knows more about law than I ever will, Harvard, Yale, or a state school, whatever. But, I thought then when an argument is brought before the SCOTUS, you are given 3 minutes (or "X" minutes), and there are no "teams", it is argued by one person, and one person alone. You can have other attorneys with materials etc, but, oral arguments, upon which they drill you back, and make up most of the case, are tightly timed, controlled, and by one firm. Newdow was acting as his own attorney (sure, he's a doctor, lawyer, AND a minister... ) and only a fool acts as his own attorney, but, he was it, correct? There weren't teams of people arguing for weeks, it was over in under an hour, and that's it.

Has this court become reactionary? Uhh.. Not to my knowledge. They had to take the case because of the intense media scrutiny, the fact that the 9th had already ruled against the standing law, and because of pressure by the White House to take the case. What was there other option? How else could they overturn the 9th without hearing the case? If they refused to hear it, the 9th wins, and the Pledge is ruled unconstitutional.

Help me out if I am missing anything huge. I just don't see them as "making laws", I think this was actually a good decision, and ruling 8-0 shows that they all thought his arguments on behalf of his daughter were two things: 1)He didn't exert the right to sue on her behalf, and 2)I think they would have ruled against him anyway.

Wasn't it Ginsberg who asked him what the initial vote was in congress when the "under God" clause was voted on? And his response was "I don't know", and she replied "it was 320 - 0. That doesn't sound divisive to me". (I dunno if it was 320... whatever it was).

~Almost

[Redhead488]

40. Hmmm

it was 8-0. I'd agree that maybe a vote along ideological lines might be considered insane, but 8-0?

I don't think the words "under God" belong in the pledge, but on legal rationale, the SC made the right decision; Newdow had no standing.

[DoNotRefill]

61. Heheheheheheee!!!!

Man, I sure do hope you don't argue a case before them and use that line of reasoning...I can see it now. "May it please the Court, when you ruled this way, you were collectively fucking insane. Thank you."

BTW and FYI, the Supreme Court outranks a law professor when it comes to legal decisions. Their word is binding. Your word isn't even dicta.

[lucky777]

72. That's Precisely the Problem, the system

covers up its insanity in a gloss or reason. The worst abuses in our history were 'legal' -- slavery, internments, segregation, etc.

That's the problem -- you can't call insanity by its name in the court system. And I say that as a lawyer who has won cases in federal appeals courts. That's why I prefer to be a professor, it is less frustrating and there is less game-playing and fake deference.

If you think that the Sup Ct is the place to find groundbreaking rulings on justice, then I would suggest that you are historically inaccurate.

The pledge affects tens of millions of kids every day; at issue is a Constitutional question; cert was granted and they agreed to hear argument on the Constitutional issue. And how will it go down in history -- as a decision on procedure and 'standing.'

As for my 'dicta,' of course my word is not binding. Whoever said it was?

[Ludicrous]

73. Who can sue?

If they had allowed a decision on this case, wouldn't it set a precedent that a non-custodial parent can sue any entity "on the child's behalf"?
Wouldn't thar open the door for millions of non-custodial parents to bring suit against the custodial parents?

[DoNotRefill]

85. BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!

It's very simple.

SCOTUS's interpretation of the Constitution = Law of the Land.
Lucky777's interpretation of the Constitution = Pitcher of Warm Spit.

[lucky777]

91. Don't try to hide -- Answer my question.

You put my credentials into question in an earlier post. Now let's hear yours.

I think I know a fair bit about the Supreme Court. One of my best friends clerked for Ginsburg; I've met Stevens in person; my moot court opponent from law school days clerked for Rehnquist; a very close friend whose office is two doors down from mine wrote the definitive book on Clarence Thomas. I just worked on a response to a cert application in a case I was handling in the 7th circuit; cert was denied earlier this year. I think I have a pretty good idea of how these people are thinking, how they decide cases.

I've worked on many constitutional cases, have you? I wrote briefs in two reported decisions from the 7th Circuit on 1st Amendment issues, one decision in the Illinois appellate court on abortion rights, plus I worked on several big cases when I was a fellow at the ACLU after graduating from Northwestern. As mentioned, I am widely published.

And now let's hear what you've got going....?

[DoNotRefill]

94. See my earlier response WRT my creds. BTW...

for a person of your "impeccable" credentials (4th tier?!?!? BWAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!! I'd die of shame before teaching at a 4th tier school, much less admitting it in public...frankly, my 4th tier comment was meant as a joke, since I didn't think ANYBODY would actually admit to something like that), you seem to have missed the fact that what the Supreme Court says goes, and that your opinion matters not one whit.

[lucky777]

95. In other words you are punting like the Court did today . . .

I'll just assume you have never worked on a real Constitutional case.

If you had worked on real Constitutional case, you'd see how crazy the decision was today. Hundreds of people spent months writing on the Establishment clause aspects of the case; it was the main topic of oral argument; most of the amici briefs dealt with the Establishment clause issue. And only the Repub justices had the balls to come out and issue a ruling on the merits; the democratics hid behind procedure.

But thanks for your expert analysis of the procedural grounds for today's decision. In your opinion a father who has a daughter for 10 days out of the month and is vitally concerned that she not be indoctrinated somehow lacks standing.

Anonymity and sarcasm -- that's what you're about.

[DoNotRefill]

98. You can assume as you please....

but that doesn't make your assumption fact.

You're new here. If you'd been around a little bit longer, you'd know the very real danger inherent in posting too much personal information. If you PM Misanthrope, I'm sure he'll tell you all about it.

The fact that the father didn't have standing was dispositive, as it ALWAYS is. No standing = no right to sue. No right to sue = no case. Why should they get into substantive issues when correcting the procedural mistake would correct the error made by the inferior court?

As for the large number of man-hours put into preparation of the case, that's nice. Not dispositive, but nice. It's like putting a very fine covered roof on a bridge, without checking first to make sure that the bridge was mechanically sound.

[lucky777]

100. We're on this board as Democrats, and today's decision will hurt

People are already seeing this as a "punt" by the democratic Justices.

Newdow has told CNN that it is a "punt" due to the democratic Justices not wanted to get the party in trouble. The message it sends is that democratic justices lack the courage of their convictions b/c they don't want to destroy our chances in November.

Right-wing zealots like Limbaugh are already saying that this shows how the far right of the Court is willing to state their principles but the left wing is gutless.

It is bad for democrats, that's the bottom line. It makes us look gutless. The procedural argument is not going to save us from withering criticism here.



http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/newdow/

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061404/content/stack_a.guest.html

[DoNotRefill]

101. Ah. So in the interest of partisanship, we should throw out....

the rule of law?

Fascinating.

[lucky777]

102. Who is advocating throwing out the rule of law?

I never said that. I never said that I had "impeccable" credentials, as you also misquoted.

I believe that the rule of law favors Newdow on the question of standing, as did the lower court and even Rehnquist. A father who is involved with his daughter has standing -- both for his own interests and those of his daughter. The custody situation in their household has shifted several times during this case; at issue is a serious Constitutional matter affecting millions of people -- it is silly to have this monumental decision turn on whether Newdow has joint custody this week.

I agree with Newdow's comments on the decision -- I just can't see how it matters whether he is a 5% parent or a 95% parent, whether the parents are together or separate or whatever. As long as he is a parent, then he has an injury in fact when his daughter is exposed to unconstitutional indoctrination.

Furthermore, the rules on standing have never been clearly justified, to my view. The basic idea is that the Court should not hear cases unless there is a genuine controversy and a real injury, but this is a situation affecting millions. The case will simply be re-filed with a new plaintiff and dragged back in front of the Court: how does today's decison do anything but push the matter into the future and cost extra time and money?

The Sup Ct has punted a lot lately -- they did the same with the Nike case on commercial speech. It is a bad trend, and they don't do it because there is some "rule of law" floating above them --- they do it b/c they are afraid.

[DoNotRefill]

105. So now you're citing Rehnquist to bolster your "liberal" argument?

;)

You say that a 5% father has an interest. What about the 95% mother's interest?

Why should the 5% custody interest trump the 95% custody interest?

The Mother doesn't have a problem with the pledge. The Daughter doesn't have a problem with the pledge.

Isn't the whole idea of custody based upon the best interest of the CHILD? The father is using his daughter in a manner that she apparently doesn't care for to further his own (non)religious agenda. What about the additional stress placed upon the child by the father's actions?

Fortunately, I'm not in JDR, so I'm not called upon to hear this kind of case. If I was, I'd have to think long and hard about granting the father ANY form of visitation, given his actions to date. The father strikes me as being interested only in his own situation and well-being (coupled with making a name for himself), and has shown NO interest in the child's well-being.

One note: Until the father's custodial relationship to the daughter is established, I'd have a real problem with the father having standing to act on the behalf of the child. In this situation, I'd most likely appoint an independent, non-related guardian ad litem to represent the child. If the g.a.l. felt the case should be pursued, fine. And I really CAN NOT see a non-involved g.a.l. thinking that pursuing this case was actually in the best interest of the child, unless the g.a.l. was MMO. Of course, since she's been dead for a while, that ain't happening.

"but this is a situation affecting millions."

So was Lujan. Come on, Prof, you KNOW why standing is required. Well, OK, you SHOULD know why standing is required.

"The case will simply be re-filed with a new plaintiff and dragged back in front of the Court"

They have to find a new plaintiff first. This'll get us past the election.

[daleo]

34. How about this?

Monday - one nation, under Jehovah
Tuesday - one nation, under Jesus
Wednesday - one nation, under Allah
Thursday - one nation, under Vishnu
Friday - one nation, under Buddha

Ran out of days before I ran out of names - still have to work in The Creator, Great Spirit, First Cause, Prime Mover, etc. Plus, we should probably take a day off from "under ..." for atheists.

I suspect that the theology is probably off for some of these. I am just illustrating how difficult it is to meld these political and religious concepts in a truly pluralistic society.

[DaveSZ]

42. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/justices/ginsburg.bio.html

Law Practice and Professional Activities:


American Civil Liberties Union: Women's Rights Project, Founder and Counsel (1972-80); General Counsel (1973-80); National Board of Directors (1974-80).


The fact that she signed on to this decision is telling (it was the right decision).

[nolabels]

49. How about Satan and Zeus, I am sure there are thousands............

of different gods just the native indigenous people of north America that were desecrated with this decision.

The natives here had many different deities (some of which where not even to be spoken of except in special and or secret rituals, sounds familiar to Skull and Bones :think: ).

I am no expert on anything, but it would appear to me these capped crusaders for non-justice are well past their prime. I will send them a post card telling all them to "STICK IT WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE"

[DoNotRefill]

63. You left out "One Nation under DoNot Refill"....

My cats worship me.

[nolabels]

75. I hate that about cats sometimes

They are so possessive.

Ours fight with one another for attention when any of us humans are around. We try to train them but as soon as we turn our back and look away the get on with the same old cat fight. We just have to feed them separately and hope they do anything permanently damaging to each other.

[Scooter24]

45. Did anyone read

Thomas' concuring in judgement wrote...

----------
"Nothing in the text of the Clause suggests that it reaches further. The Establisment Clause does not purport to protect individual rights. By contrast, the Free Exercise Clause plainly protects individuals against congressional interference with the right to exercise their religion, and the remaining Clauses within the First Amendment expressly disable Congress from abridging particular freedoms. This textual analysis is consistant with the prevailing view that the Constitution left religion to the States"

"Quite simply, the Establishment Clause, which clearly protects an individual right, applies against the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Establishment Clause is another matter. The text and history of the Establishment Clause strongly suggest that it is a federalism provision intended to prevent Congress from interfering with state establishments. Thus, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, which does protect an individual right, it makes little sense to incorporate the Establishment Clause. In any case, I do not believe that the Pledge policy infringes any religious liberty right that would arise from incorportation of the Clause. Because the Pledge policy also does not infringe any free-exercise rights, I conclude it is constitutional.

A
"But even assuming that the Establishment Clause
precludes the Federal Government from establishing a
national religion, it does not follow that the Clause created
or protects any individual right. For the reasons discussed
above, it is more likely that States and only States were
the direct beneficiaries."

"Moreover, incorporation of this putative individual right leads to a peculiar outcome: It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect- state establishments of religion."


C
Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or
maintained any religious establishment, and neither has
it granted government authority to an existing religion.
The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal
coercion associated with an established religion. Further,
no other free-exercise rights are at issue. It follows that
religious liberty rights are not in question and that the
Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution.
---------

I'm sort of shocked by this. It says that the Establishment Clause of the Constitution doesn't apply to the individual but to the individual states. We are free to exercise whatever religion we want, but the states have the choice, as in this case, whether to establish a state religion or not, just as long as we aren't coerced into following it, which didn't happen in this case.

[peterh]

53. Someone can correct me if I’m wrong here….

What Thomas writes here has no real legal standing….it’s his commentary “outside” of the decision….I actually thought Rehnquist wrote this and Thomas and O’Conner concurred….still, it was a minority that signed the “outside” ramble….It’s a practice some Justices have been noted to do and it can be a source of confusion outside the legal circle…or so I’ve heard….

….and I agree with Barry Lynn, the issue will be brought back some time in the future…..

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, said he is disappointed.
"The justices ducked this constitutional issue today, but it is likely to come
back in the future," Lynn said. "Students should not feel compelled by school
officials to subscribe to a particular religious belief in order to show love of
country."

[chimpy the poopthrower]

54. I noticed that too.

It really shows their bias. If the suit was dismissed on procedural grounds, what business do they have weighing in about the merits of the under-god argument? Rehnquist et al. are shameless.

[NewJerseyDem]

56. It is their business to weigh in on the under god argument

All the justices agreed that the case should be dismissed, so they all wrote opinions suggesting that. However, Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer dismissed it because on procedural grounds. However, Renhquist, Thomas and O'Connor reached the same conclusion as the majority but for different reasons, the constitutional reasons. That is what a concurring opinion is for. It is when a justice agrees with the decision of the majority but for different reasons so their actions were were appropriate considering their reasoning.

[chimpy the poopthrower]

59. I guess I misunderstood.

This sentence "Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution." led me to believe that the opinions of Rehnquist were an "and also" sort of thing. I guess agreeing with the outcome is not the same as agreeing with the reason for it. But does that mean that Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor believe that Newdow did have standing? I mean, does writing a concurring opinion automatically mean that you disagree with the main opinion?

[NewJerseyDem]

68. I believe that they did believe Newdow had standing

I glanced over the Chief Justice's concurring opinion and it appears that he says that Newdow does have standing.

From my understanding of the Supreme Court, a concurring opinion is when a justice agrees with the outcome of the court's decision but not necesarily the reasoning to reach that decision. However, it is possible that the concurring justice can agree with parts or all of the majority opinion and can go on seperately, or with other justices, to explain further their reasoning. Or, the justice can choose to not support the majority opinion and can simply write an opinion that has totally different reasongin for why they agreed with the court's decision.

[Scooter24]

55. It has no legal standing...

but just like a dissent, concurring judgments can be cited and set precedent in further decisions from the court. In Thomas' ruling, he practically gave states the right to establish their own religion, and said plainly that the Lee decision was incorrectly decided. Though it might not be cited as a court holding, Thomas has indirectly given the pro-religion supporters a new angle to approach further cases.

[Frodo]

57. That's basically the way it was.

More than one state DID have a "state religion" well after the ratifying of the Constitution (Massachusets being the last, I believe - in 1833).

[DoNotRefill]

64. Scooter....

It can be used persuasively, but is never binding.

[Almost_there]

87. But, isn't that what the constitution is about?

I am no legal scholar, but, if I recall from history, the constitution was really created as a framework of what the Federal government could NOT do more so than what they could. It was really to placate the state governments (aka landowners) at the time, and let them know that they had nothing to fear by joining the Federalist system.

The Establishment Clause is commonly mis-represented as "seperation of Church and State", and that really isn't what it says at all. If we read it verbatim, the opinion you stated is dead on correct. But, if we interpret the document, as it is meant to be, as a "living document", seperation of Church and state is what it boils down to. I believe that every state (although Alabama proved interesting) has a seperation clause, or an Establishment clause in their constitutions, making it clear about religion.

[Hippo_Tron]

103. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Congress passes laws that allocate federal funding to public schools. If the schools favor a religion then it is unconstitutional. Granted, I don't think that allowing kids "Under God" violates the seperation of church and state, but that's my opinion.

[BearFlagDemocrat]

51. Had a discussion with a relative this weekend about this

I told her that I thought that we not only should remove "under God", but also "In God we Trust" from all currency. She said that God was a generic term, and didn't refer to any god in particular. I replied, "Then why isn't it spelled with a small 'g'?" Her response? "Because that's His name, duh. It's spelled with a big G."

:::sigh::: She's normally very smart.

[TheMightyFavog]

71. People, thank your lucky stars that the SCOTUS threw this one out.

A decision for or against "under god" would have become a major rallying cry for the fundies, and would have been a big boost to minibrain's numbers.

[0007]

76. Bummer!

It will be tested again by a parent that has child living at home.

[TexasMexican]

77. w00t

[ldf]

80. regardless of what they do

they CAN NOT MAKE ME SAY IT!!!

yes, i'm shouting.

i will be content with screwing up the pledge everytime i recite it. i'll finish early and sit down.

:-)

[CTLawGuy]

81. Newdow should have

sued to overturn the 1954 act adding the phrase "under God" to the Pledge. Because that act has an obvious religious purpose to it, it is batantly unconstitutional.

[crossroads]

82. {{{{{yawn}}}}}

no surprises in this SC... lockstep...
:shrug:

[Hippo_Tron]

92. The asshole got what he deserved

He wasn't speaking for his child, he was speaking for himself. Quite ironic that it was thrown out on this technicality. As far as I'm concerned kids have a right to free speech, meaning they can say the "Under God", not say it, not say the pledge altogether, or say, "One Nation under Bob" for all I care. The debate is pointless.

[JohnLocke]

96. Give me a break.

[Hippo_Tron]

97. That's what I believe...

If kids want to say "under god" they should be allowed to. If kids don't want to say it, they don't have to. If they were forced to say it, I would be complaining as much as the ACLU.

[JohnLocke]

104. Why pressure people to say it?

What's the point?

[Hippo_Tron]

106. Kids are pressured to say it regardless of the "under god"

Whether teachers should pressure them to recite it period is a different story entirely. If a kid wishes to say something different, they can. There is no need to make a big issue of whether the two words should be in the "official" pledge because kids are forced to say the "official" pledge. Additionally, I think the guy is a complete asshole for trying to use his daughter to spread his own personal beliefs.

[leesa]

99. All the felony crimes being committed by our government needing attention

and this is what they WASTE their time on??