Supreme Court Dodges the Pledge Issue

[jgruber]

The Supremes decided that the man who sued over the words 'under God' in the pledge of allegiance was not parent enough to have standing.

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

[marista]

My uncle is Newdow (the guy who sued)'s lawyer Bummer that they lost though...

[jgruber]

My uncle is Newdow (the guy who sued)'s lawyer Bummer that they lost though...

He didn't really lose.  They used the partial custody as an excuse to avoid the issue.

[grahamers]

It was not a *dodge*.  the issue of standing is very important.  there are actully TWO issues that were discussed at great length during oral arguments.  First and foremost was wether or not the litigant had standing.  He does not have full custody of the child and the mother of the child disagrees with him.  If you go and read the transcripts of the oral arguments, you will see that they spend about 50% of their time discussing this. 

The issue of standing in cases where the parents disagree on big issues like religion has far-reaching implications.

[Ginatio]

apparently 3 of the justices made a concurring opinion and said that even if they had ruled on the case based on its merits (the father's standing aside), their decision would not have changed.

[grahamers]

apparently 3 of the justices made a concurring opinion and said that even if they had ruled on the case based on its merits (the father's standing aside), their decision would not have changed.

Yeah, that is a tad disturbing.  They are preaching from the bench a nit, but I guess they wanted to get their opinion into caselaw.  I can see no way that it is constitutional to have a system where everyone is ASKED to say "under God" and force the "different" kids to option out of the event.  It is the same pattern as in every other prayer in school decision that has said that this is too much for kids to deal with and that they shouldn't be subjected to such preasures by the government.  I just don't see how the pledge is different. 

Almost all of the legal writing supporting it has basically said something like, "Well, it is such a small thing and it is so well established that it really doesn't have religious signifigance anymore.  It is more of a cicil thing."  The only problem I have with that argument is, "If it is no big thing, why are all the religious societies fighting so hard to keep it in there?"

[jgruber]

I still think it is a dodge, but I'll leave it at that.

As to whether under God is a big deal...

I said the pledge about sixty zillion times in school and every time I said "under God" and it did not one thing to bring me nearer to God. 

[schoomp]

To take a case to court - you have to have the legal standing.  You can't take your neighbor to court because he hit someone else.  You can only take your neighbor to court if he hit you.  When it involves a child, the parent that has the legal responsibilities for the child (in this case the mother) is the only one that can bring lawsuits on the child's behalf.  Now, if the father gets joint custody, I bet they can retry the case...

[jgruber]

I understand that, but somehow the lower courts didn't see it that way.

Or did they?

To take a case to court - you have to have the legal standing.  You can't take your neighbor to court because he hit someone else.  You can only take your neighbor to court if he hit you.  When it involves a child, the parent that has the legal responsibilities for the child (in this case the mother) is the only one that can bring lawsuits on the child's behalf.  Now, if the father gets joint custody, I bet they can retry the case...

[schoomp]

I don't think the federal level court looked at that issue - and the Supreme Court could have chosen not to also.  However, as I am remembering the case, the father sued over the Pledge.  After the case got so much attention, the mother came forward and said she didn't agree with the case.  It then came out that the father had to rights to the child and was involved in a custody battle when the ruling happened.  The custody battle is still going on now - thus the Supreme Court chose to ignore the case because of the custody battle.  I believe the question wasn't even asked during the Federal case as the mother didn't even know it was happening...