The W
Views: 134090953
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.6.18 1500
The W - Current Events & Politics - Supreme Court calls Pledge case "No Decision"
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.75
Pages: 1
(1368 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2606 days
Last activity: 1061 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
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...)



God Bless Ronald Reagan, and may he rest in peace...

* * * * * * *

For decades, American had waged a Cold War, and few believed it could possibly end in our own lifetimes. The president was one of those few. And it was the vision and the will of Ronald Reagan that gave hope to the oppressed, shamed the oppressors and ended an evil empire . . . Ronald Reagan was more than a historic figure. He was a providential man who came along just when our nation and the world most needed him.

Fellow Americans, here lies a graceful and a gallant man.
- Dick Cheney, 6/9/2004


Reagan had a rare and prized gift called leadership, that ineffable and sometimes magical quality that sets some men and women apart so that millions will follow them as they conjure up grand visions and invite their countrymen to dream big and exciting dreams.-Brian Mulroney, 6/11/2004
Promote this thread!
Guru Zim
SQL Dejection
Administrator








Since: 9.12.01
From: Bay City, OR

Since last post: 14 days
Last activity: 7 days
ICQ:  
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.81
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.





Willful ignorance of science is not commendable. Refusing to learn the difference between a credible source and a shill is criminally stupid.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 2606 days
Last activity: 1061 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    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.



God Bless Ronald Reagan, and may he rest in peace...

* * * * * * *

For decades, American had waged a Cold War, and few believed it could possibly end in our own lifetimes. The president was one of those few. And it was the vision and the will of Ronald Reagan that gave hope to the oppressed, shamed the oppressors and ended an evil empire . . . Ronald Reagan was more than a historic figure. He was a providential man who came along just when our nation and the world most needed him.

Fellow Americans, here lies a graceful and a gallant man.
- Dick Cheney, 6/9/2004


Reagan had a rare and prized gift called leadership, that ineffable and sometimes magical quality that sets some men and women apart so that millions will follow them as they conjure up grand visions and invite their countrymen to dream big and exciting dreams.-Brian Mulroney, 6/11/2004
DrDirt
Banger








Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 239 days
Last activity: 141 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.26
Guru, I believe the mother is the custodial parent and hence the one with standing.



Perception is reality
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge








Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 4637 days
Last activity: 4629 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.81

    "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.




Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
y2coma
Loukanika








Since: 6.11.02

Since last post: 3402 days
Last activity: 1535 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
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








Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 4637 days
Last activity: 4629 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.81
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.



Lethalwrestling.com: If you don't read us, you're probably gay
bash91
Merguez








Since: 2.1.02
From: Bossier City, LA

Since last post: 2136 days
Last activity: 235 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.61
    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



People who say they don't "play politics" merely play politics badly. -- David Drake
Thread rated: 4.75
Pages: 1
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
(1368 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
If they had of filed the suit before the Patriot Act, then the previous law would have superceded that. Now, who really nows. It may be for good reason, but it still looks bad.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Supreme Court calls Pledge case "No Decision"Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2018 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.389 seconds.