Pledge

[romantic_cynic]

The U.S. Supreme Court today left the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance by a technicality that is sure to please none.  The Court ruled 8-0 that Michael Newdow did not have the proper standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter because he did not have legal custody.  By its decision, the Court neither affirms nor denies to

Comments

[staticentropy]

First - broken link.

Second: it's disappointing. Deciding something like this on such a relatively minor point is really weak. I would have preferred it had they made a decision either way, despite the very real chance that they would have ruled against my opinion (that "under God" doesn't belong).

*shrug* We'll see what happens. The child custody laws in the US are also suboptimal. Maybe some light will be shed on those in the process as well.

[romantic_cynic]

Link fixed.

I also expect them to come down decidedly for keeping the phrase. But the more liberal members of the Court didn't want to actually say that today. It's just that the jurisprudence tends to allow little things like this. It doesn't matter to me. I'll keep saying it with the phrase there, mainly because it'll throw off the rhythm for me to not say it.

"Some light [may] be shed on" US child custody laws, but 1) the courts would have a very difficult time reworking the whole system without the rest of the government and 2) I expect some of the details involved are gritty enough that people wouldn't care - when's the last time you heard of child custody laws as an election issue?

[calling_to_deep]

First, I did not at all find it disappointing that they ruled Newdow didn't have standing. If we didn't maintain the integrity fo the process, having a judicial system at all would be pointless. You don't have standing, you don't get to sue, plain and simple.

Secondly, even if the guy had standing, he and the kid's mother were in disagreement over what the kid should be exposed to. That's a matter that should never be in the public domain (unless there are issues of abuse or other nastiness that the state has a vested interest in settling). Religious disagreements between parents don't belong in the courts, plain and simple.

I really wish the case had been brought before the SCotUS by a pair of parents who could prove standing: then the issue would have been resolved clearly.

[romantic_cynic]

It looks like someone with solid standing will bring up the case. It is simply a matter of how long that will take to reach the Court.