Pledge case puts chill on parental rights

[CShine]

WASHINGTON – In avoiding the merits of the Pledge of Allegiance case, the US Supreme Court has dealt a substantial blow to the rights of noncustodial parents to use the federal courts to protect their children from alleged unconstitutional harms. The court's 5-to-3 ruling on Monday has been largely portrayed as a dodge by the majority justices to avoid the difficult constitutional issue of whether the words "under God" in the Pledge violate the separation of church and state. But to many parents - primarily fathers - who do not share custody, the five-justice majority has just given lower-court judges the power to throw noncustodial parents out of court - even when their complaints involve possible constitutional violations against their children by the government.

California atheist Michael Newdow says the Supreme Court decision reversing his case violates his fundamental constitutional right to protect his child from unconstitutional government conduct.

Legal experts disagree on the potential implications of the high court's decision. Some say it remains to be seen whether the unusual circumstances of Mr. Newdow's case will translate broadly to other cases. Others see it as yet another setback to a struggling fathers' rights movement fighting what it views as gender discrimination by certain family-court judges who automatically favor mothers over fathers in all but the most extreme cases.

"The impact is huge," says Michael McCormick of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children. "There are 14 million noncustodial parents in this country who, if this decision is interpreted broadly, have lost the capacity to act on behalf of their children."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0617/p02s01-usju.html

[jayfish]

1. Yup, They Took A Pass On Meaningless Drivel And...

fucked up something truly important in the process. Way to go P-O-L-I-T-I-C-O's. This country stinks of rot. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been paying attention.

Jay

[TahitiNut]

2. Funny, some of us mentioned this and were roundly pooh-poohed.

I guess our concerns were fairly well-founded. I still cannot understand how determination of 'custody' deprives the non-custodial parent of other rights and interests without a due process determination of such disenfranchisement. The appallingly political court fumbles yet another one.

[squidbro]

3. Not all is as it seems

Ah, but the knife cuts both ways.

What happens if the situation is reversed? How would the court have ruled if the mother as the custodial parent forced atheism on a child and the non-custodial father wanted the freedom to discuss religion?

The court with its conservative and ideological bias would likely have ruled differently.

However, they have now set a precedent. They might yet come to rue this decision at some point.

[jayfish]

4. They Can Discuss Theism All They Want To...

outside of a publicly funded institution. This case wasn't about parental rights, it was about the use of the word God in the furtherance of establishing a state religion. By punting, the Supreme Court Jesters made it an issue of parental rights as well. This knife was double edged and cut straight into the constitution and parental rights at the same time.

Jay

EDITED TO REMOVE INFLAMMATORY RHETORIC

[johnfunk]

5. A better and more accurate title for the article would've been...

Conservative Social Engineers Shoot Selves in Foot
Insane support for loyalty pledge originally written by socialist undercuts sexist "Fathers' Rights" campaign

[donsu]

6. kick

nt

[Fovea]

7. This SCOTUS will go into the history books

as morally relativist, ethically bankrupt, and Orwellian in its application of judicial theory.

This damage to Parental authority goes in the books right next to their defense of the Civil Rights of rich white men, and gutting the medical necessity defense.

It will be noted that this court overturned concepts of human freedom and dignity honored since the Magna Carta.