One nation, under technicalities
Keeping with its long history of absolutely avoiding the fundamental issues at hand and relying on nitpicky crap no one gives a shit about to make the ultimate decision regarding the fate of things, the Supreme Court ruled that Michael Newdow 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.
Update: XRLQ has more and it’s in far less condescending, smarmy tone than my, uhm, insightful and spot on analysis.
June 14th, 2004 at 1:55 pm
I actually like the ruling. The only thing better would have been for the court to rule against Newdow on both issues, and to rule more generally that he is an annoying, pencil-necked geek who should be barred from ever bringing any other suits in any court, for any reason. But I guess that’s too much to hope for.
June 14th, 2004 at 3:39 pm
I’m okay with the ruling, but for wildly different reasons than Xrlq. Had Newdow won, religious conservatives would have played up the BS “this ruling takes away our religious liberty” crap and tried to parlay it into a constitutional amendment. So it’s probably for the best that Newdow lost.
Personally, the way European countries with state religions are generally apathetic about religion, I almost wouldn’t mind seeing the US follow that path. Pollute religion with government, thereby making people skeptical of religion. It’s a great plan. 🙂
June 14th, 2004 at 5:58 pm
Gutless wonders.
I can’t understand the short-sightedness of those within religion who seem determined to drag Government in. There are VERY few things that improve with increased governmental involvement. Any gain in short-term power to give one sect a leg-up over others will be paid for many times over in the long run.
Rational religious people need their religion protected from Government as badly as devout Secularists need their Government protected from religion. The beauty of Jefferson’s “wall” is that it protects both from the other.
A smart fellow, Tom was.
June 15th, 2004 at 3:01 pm
I think there is something else at issue that you guys are missing. I think the SCOTUS did the right thing, even though I would have liked to have had a ruling on the underlying issue. Once the state issued the challenge to his standing, it had to be addressed. If the SCOTUS hadn’t denied it based on his lack of standing, then it would have had the effect of ratifying that someone in this situation could have standing for the child.
Is the law clear on the Pledge issue yet? No, but the status quo has been returned. The law is clear, however, now on the issue of standing for parents. Let’s take the wins where get them, because we got two of them here.
June 15th, 2004 at 3:18 pm
Excellent point phelps, but couldn’t they have said he’s not the parent but if he were . . .
June 14th, 2004 at 1:58 pm
God Wins on a Technicality
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Michael A. Newdow 542 U.S. ____ (2004) has been decided. The Court ruled unanimously against Michael “I will win because I’m right” Newdow, although they were not unanimous on the reason. Ironically, all four …
June 14th, 2004 at 4:50 pm
Supreme Court Wusses Out in Pledge Case
Rather than setting any kind of precedent, the Supreme Court opted to reject Michael Newdow’s right to sue, avoiding the…
June 14th, 2004 at 7:25 pm
Final Ruling in Newdow Pledge Case
The U.S Supreme Court has delivered a very weak ruling against Newdow in his challenge to a Sacramento school district’s recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. Since there’s no apparent requirement that his daughter recite the Pledge, I have to agree …