Why am I not surprised?

[nsingman]

Apparently, a majority of US Supreme Court justices have just decided that Michael Newdow doesn't have legal standing in the Pledge case.

Comments

[twfarlan]

Five justiced just ducked the issue, the cowards.

[nsingman]

You answered correctly. That was why I was not surprised. :-)

[twfarlan]

Every commentator on the subject mentioned that, while Newdow's standing COULD be used to avoid the issue, that doing so would represent a monumental failure on the part of the Court to address a CLEAR violation of the Establishment Clause. The Court is, perhaps for the first time in its history, ducking an issue because they are scared of the ramifications. Congress sitting and considering an Act that would allow Congress to overrule a SCOTUS decision against their own Acts might be to blame for a chilling effect, but even if that is the case, we'd be looking at an instance of the Court ruling based on fear of reprisal rather than ruling purely on the merits of the case and the law, a situation the SCOTUS was expressly designed to avoid ever having happen. This is what lifetime tenure for Federal judges is in for, after all

[nsingman]

Actually, there probably will be a rematch. A plaintiff will be found who, unlike Newdow, has standing. The court may well find a way to weasel out again, but I'm sure this isn't settled.

At the risk of being overly cynical, I'm a bit surprised that you're ashamed of them today. We've all lived with tons (literally) of patently unconstitutional legislation, including virtually the entire corpus of the New Deal and Great Society monstrosities. While I'll never sing the praises of Congress or the Presidency (and the latter is particularly dangerous when it exceeds its constitutional bounds, which is almost always), the Supremes don't have clean hands.

[missperkygoth]

Color me unsurprised as well. I doubt that anything will ever actually be done about it.

[nsingman]

Not any time soon. Although I confess that, radical libertarian that I am, the word "indivisible" bothers me more than the words "under God." :-)

[theonetrueruss]

hmmm.. have to think on that.. I mean.. is being one nation, indivisible an affront to liberty somehow... not sure... I mean.. to not maintain the integrety of the nation (i.e. not allow it to be divided) is sorta the point of having the government at all.. wouldn't getting rid of that function of government step over from being a libertarian view to a pure anarchist view? Should a stat have the right to succeed from the nation? Certainly individuals should have the right to leave but that's not the same thing as a state splitting off.... Now I have to reconcile this one in my head.. thanks

[ertchin]

wouldn't getting rid of that function of government step over from being a libertarian view to a pure anarchist view?

Yes.

[myrthrilmercury]

Everything I've read about the case says that the daughter doesn't have a problem with the words "under God." Has the father ever asked her about that? It seems he hasn't. If she doesn't have a problem with the words, I see no reason for the father to force his beliefs on her.

[nsingman]

The father may have asked her, but as a minor, her opinion may not be that relevant to him. As he sees it, she is being exposed (via the pledge) to a government establishment of religion. The argument is the same one made with school-sponsored prayers. Even if someone says they don't mind, it might simply be peer pressure to conform that explains their assent.

[gunhed]

As I understand it the father does not have primary custody of the daughter. Since she lives with her mother (who, I believe, is a Christian, as is the daughter!) his suit may not have had much legal standing anyway.

In that situation, though, they should have never agreed to hear the case in the first place. At least, that's how I see it.

[nsingman]

One would think that some level of federal judge would have discovered a legal standing problem sooner, right?

[rosefox]

Newdow took the unusual step of arguing his own case to the high court in March.

Not that that might have had anything to do with it. Why don't people let experts do these things? This stuff is important, dammit.

[joezilla]

What was it they said about the man who represents himself?

[captain_phil]

I believe it was "The Man Who Represents Himself has a fool for a lawyer", or something along that line.

[nsingman]

If memory serves, it ended with "a fool for a lawyer and a client." And it's often true.

[2hedgehogs]

I don't know why the pledge thing gets me so worked up, but it does.

When I was in high school, I made a point of sitting out the pledge for this reason. I was still a Christian at the time; however, I felt that just because I happened to share the faith we were all supposed to profess, didn't make it right.

Also, of course, I was a teenager, looking for any reason to fight the system. :)

I'm hoping this gets challenged again, so I can get an explanation what the rationale is for having all the schoolchildren in the country stand and affirm their belief in god. Something a little more satisfying than, "well, he doesn't have custody, so don't worry about it". I really want this resolved before I ever have kids.

By the way, on NPR yesterday, they claimed that many opposed to the inclusion of those two words in the pledge were quietly relieved at the non-decision. Seems many are fearful of a backlash constitutional amendment.

[nsingman]

I'm not surprised that many are glad that the issue wasn't truly resolved. But that's also a cowardly position, just like those who want to avoid a Supreme Court decision on the Defense of Marriage Act.

I prefer those who've taken a stand, even if I disagree with it.

And happy birthday, Tim!