|
|
Post by Frogsy on Jun 14, 2004 9:56:49 GMT -5
They said he doesn't have sufficient custody of his daughter to speak for her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Seany-D on Jun 14, 2004 10:03:07 GMT -5
yeah, I was just logging in to post that. I guess that was the out that SCOTUS was looking for. Saves them face from having to rule one way or the other.
Who wants to bet that we'll see all sorts of rallies from the evangelicals? Every time a ruling like this occurs, they seem to get more belligerent and overt in their assertions that America was created just for people like them. It's manifest destiny gone wrong, yet again.
---<snip>---
Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge
Jun 14, 10:34 AM (ET)
By ANNE GEARAN
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance Monday, ruling that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath.
The procedural ruling did not directly address whether the pledge recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.
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.
The father, Michael Newdow, is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the case.
Sean "come to think of it, I can't remember the last time I said the Pledge" Davis
|
|
|
|
Post by Frogsy on Jun 14, 2004 10:30:01 GMT -5
Yeah, can't wait for the "We told you so! Praise Jesus!" types to rally...
-Jessica "supposed to be resting, but who needs sleep?" Leiby
|
|
|
|
Post by the anti-myrmidon on Jun 14, 2004 11:52:14 GMT -5
This was exactly the result I expected. The unanimous decision doesn't surprise me either. It leaves the door open, so I can't complain about much. However, the biggest problem is not the decision, but Rehnquist's concurring opinion which tries to rule firmly on the issue itself. While not legally binding, such opinions can be used in other cases to try and sway judges. The fact that Thomas signed it is no surprise, but O'Connor was a bit of shock. She has ruled against similar sorts of indirect endorsements before, but she seems to view the Pledge as an exception to the rule. Kennedy apparently did not sign it though, which is rather encouraging.
|
|
|
|
Post by ebonywnd on Jun 24, 2004 14:30:37 GMT -5
|
|
