Our non-partisan supreme court being at it again...

[tjwash]

...The Supreme Court preserved the phrase “one nation, under God,” but sidestepped the broader question of separation of church and state.

Gee whiz, sidestepped questions on an obvious violation of church and state. What a suprise.

[GoodSpud]

1. The worst thing is the rational...

The Supremes basically stated that because there is an ongoing custody case over the daughter, Newdow does not have legal standing to act on behalf of his daughter.

One wonders, if that is the case, just who does have legal standing to act for the daughter.

Not the father - custody dispute.
Not the mother - custody dispute.

Guess the kid is on her own.


T.D.P.

[Scooter24]

3. But

the mother does have legal custody...Whether its being disputed or not. The case has more depth to it because the mother and daughter both have publically said they are fine with the pledge and are Christians. The father used his daughter as a device to push his own agenda. That I don't agree with no matter if his intentions were just. The most serious part of this case is Thomas' statement...it pratically gave states the right to establish a religion...

[Cheswick2.0]

5. the mother has custody

the father may be disputing it, but she has custody.

[Bandit]

8. They are so concerned with Legal Standing ~ What standing did Bush*

have in 2000? How could he possibly be irreparably harmed when he hadn't won anything yet. The votes had not been certified so neither Gore not Bush* had anything yet to lose. The only person/s with real standing were the voters themselves. They did not get all their votes counted so they were indeed irreparably harmed. But when did law ever get in the way of the extreme court?

[trotsky]

2. In their defense...

I remember this being mentioned a long time ago as a fairly likely result of the case. "Legal standing" gives you the right to sue. The CA court already denied Newdow legal standing in a different case, so although this court is perfectly capable of punting on a difficult issue, they were within reason to rule like this.

[Hamlette]

4. I think it is a great sign

it means the court is divided over the issue. Had all 8 of them been in favor of keeping the phrase in the pledge the court would have ruled on the merits.

They didn't want to issue a divided decision on the merits so they agreed to take the case out on a technicality. There is hope.

[Cheswick2.0]

6. not this case

This type of case has to be brought by someone who has suffered damage. This father suied in his daughters name and she is a Christian and prefers to say the pledge with "under God" in it.

[Hamlette]

9. The father did not sue in his daughter's name

he sued as a father who objects to what the pledge "teaches" his daughter about HIS beliefs.

As to custody issues, my years as a divorce lawyer gave me an appreciation for the position that says the custodial parent gets to make the call. My experience was in other areas, obviously. At some point the courts have to say "we will not referee disputes between divorced parents."

I would have rather the court rule on the merits...if they would have ruled in "my" favor. My guess is they couldn't and they did not want to issue a divided opinion so they opted for the technical dismissal.

Courts do it all the time. In my experience the first thing any court looks at is trying to find a way NOT to rule on a case, especially a case that will be divisive.

[Cheswick2.0]

7. The fact that the ruling was 8-0 should be a clue

that this was not partisan, but the correct ruling. Even the conservatives agreed.