The W
Views: 137312620
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.10.11 2040
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Supreme Court calls Pledge case "No Decision" Register and log in to post!
(1267 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 129

Posts: 3289/4700
EXP: 24838839
For next: 210882

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2725 days
Last activity: 1179 days
#1 Posted on 14.6.04 1010.12
Reposted on: 14.6.11 1013.27
From the AP...

    Originally posted by Associated Press
    The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling today that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath while sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.

    The decision leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.

    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.


Unfortunately, the Court took the easy way out. More than likely, the Supreme Court will see this one again...

However, if he did not have standing, how in the world could the Ninth Circit justify moving it along(that is a rhetorical question...)
Promote this thread!
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator
Level: 146

Posts: 2448/6162
EXP: 37952136
For next: 561250

Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 37 days
Last activity: 21 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#2 Posted on 14.6.04 1308.53
Reposted on: 14.6.11 1308.53
I'm actually more concerned about the fact that they claimed he didn't have sufficient parental rights to make the decision. From what I read, he has the child in his custody for 10/30 of the month.

I didn't realize you had to have parental custody of your child for more than 50% of the time in order to make decisions regarding their upbringing.

This seems to be a new interpretation of the law - although I am not a child of divorce, nor do I have kids, nor am I divorced - so I claim ignornance here.

Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 129

Posts: 3292/4700
EXP: 24838839
For next: 210882

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2725 days
Last activity: 1179 days
#3 Posted on 14.6.04 1311.34
Reposted on: 14.6.11 1312.20
    Originally posted by Guru Zim
    From what I read, he has the child in his custody for 10/30 of the month.
My understanding was that he had no parental rights to tthe child whatsoever, but that his rights were being ocntested in court.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 101

Posts: 811/2743
EXP: 10642998
For next: 74714

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 357 days
Last activity: 259 days
#4 Posted on 14.6.04 1443.54
Reposted on: 14.6.11 1446.58
Guru, I believe the mother is the custodial parent and hence the one with standing.
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge
Level: 49

Posts: 334/502
EXP: 831015
For next: 52874

Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 4755 days
Last activity: 4748 days
#5 Posted on 14.6.04 1506.15
Reposted on: 14.6.11 1508.30

    "I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."

Oh right, you're the world's best dad. I know I'm just one of millions who wish our dad would thrust us into the spotlight over a fight we never gave a shit about from the start because he likes to cause controversy and has a personal grudge against religion. Give that guy TWO gifts next Sunday.

What a horse's ass.
y2coma
Loukanika
Level: 8

Posts: 5/9
EXP: 2060
For next: 127

Since: 6.11.02

Since last post: 3520 days
Last activity: 1654 days
#6 Posted on 14.6.04 1857.09
Reposted on: 14.6.11 1858.10
Oh right, you're the world's best dad. I know I'm just one of millions who wish our dad would thrust us into the spotlight over a fight we never gave a shit about from the start because he likes to cause controversy and has a personal grudge against religion. Give that guy TWO gifts next Sunday.

What a horse's ass.



In this case you are right, but the High Court just set what I think is a really bad precedent. The father of a child,especially when he has even limited custody, should clearly have the right to stand up for the child.

Again, the result of this case is the correct one in my view since it is farly widely known that the child really didn't have an objection to the "under god" phrase. However, this is a huge blow to the rights of fathers.
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge
Level: 49

Posts: 336/502
EXP: 831015
For next: 52874

Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 4755 days
Last activity: 4748 days
#7 Posted on 14.6.04 1905.53
Reposted on: 14.6.11 1906.57
I choose to remain optomistic that another case will clear up some of that soon enough. The decision really reads like a "we don't want this guy to win because he's an asshole" way to leave the pledge wording alone.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 57

Posts: 214/711
EXP: 1484643
For next: 1294

Since: 2.1.02
From: Bossier City, LA

Since last post: 2254 days
Last activity: 112 days
#8 Posted on 14.6.04 2246.42
Reposted on: 14.6.11 2246.50
    Originally posted by y2coma
    In this case you are right, but the High Court just set what I think is a really bad precedent. The father of a child,especially when he has even limited custody, should clearly have the right to stand up for the child.

    Again, the result of this case is the correct one in my view since it is farly widely known that the child really didn't have an objection to the "under god" phrase. However, this is a huge blow to the rights of fathers.


Actually, I'd suggest that this is the best possible decision for those concerned about the rights of non-custodial parents. Rather than establishing FEDERAL standards for custody, consent decrees, and other parental issues, the Supremes deferred to the individual states and their long established policies regarding those matters. While it is clear to anyone that their are major problems with the way that some states handle father's rights, I'd much rather that be left in the province of the state courts and legislatures than be handed over to the Federal Judiciary. For more from this point of view, Dahlia Lithwick ( http://slate.msn.com/id/2102381/ ) has what I think is the absolute best take on this issue.

    Originally posted by Barbwire Mike
    I choose to remain optomistic that another case will clear up some of that soon enough. The decision really reads like a "we don't want this guy to win because he's an asshole" way to leave the pledge wording alone.


As one of my wife's law professors always used to say, "Bad facts make bad law." This is one of the cases where I think the best thing they could have done was just what they did. Given that the 9th circuit had horribly botched the case, what a surprise, and it never should have gone this far, it was decided pretty well. They didn't make any grand pronouncements one way or the other, they merely said that this isn't the right case or set of facts with which to make a decision.

Tim
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: Clinton Movie debuts in Arkansas
Next thread: Anti-Integration Parties thrive in EU elections
Previous thread: Morrissey, I'd like you to meet the Dixie Chicks
(1267 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Supreme Court calls Pledge case "No Decision"Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2018 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.082 seconds.