Fox News Alert - Pledge case dismissed by USSC

Fox news

[I still care]

Just a breaking news bar - the court has thrown out Newdows case on a technicality. Score one for the pledge.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...The question is how did the case get this far in the first place if it was thrown out on such a clear technicality?

See post 94.

Clearly explained.

[Wyatt's Torch]

The 9th Circuit is clearly not interested in any law...just legislating from the bench.

[Boatlawyer]

Or, if you reflected on the privilege of getting to argue a constitutional standing case.... As one of my clients reminded me one day, "You are privileged to argue before the courts of this land!" Schmaltzy, I know, but gives me some comfort after a loss!

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yes, I conceded that they were right to throw it out already. But how about the Lawrence case? If they ruled on precedent, they should have thrown it out, recognizing Texas' right to legislate in these matters. If they ruled on the actual case, they should have only said that Texas' law was inconsistent in that it allowed sodomy in some cases and not others. But no. They were eager to change the law. And they blathered on with such grandstanding that now state justices are citing the case as an excuse to mandate gay marriage.

The court takes what it WANTS to take, not what it should take. In my opinion, they ruled this way on the Newdow case because they were scared to rule consistently with previous rulings. That's all. They are saving it for another day.

[Big Guy and Rusty 99]

The liberals saying that "in God we trust" is not necessary to the history of the nation is like saying that the spine is not needed for walking.

[Palladin]

I keep waiting for some of these Supreemies to be called to their Heavenly (or Hellacious) Reward.

They do seem to have unnaturally long life spans.

[rwfromkansas]

Like I said, this ruling embarrasses Newdow more than just being ruled against. It also means he can't come back with any religious issue and tie it to his daughter anymore or be laughed at.

[mlo]

"It does not immediately follow that abortion is among the unenumerated rights spoken of in the 9th Amendment..."

Beside the point. What I responded to was this: "maybe now they can go back and see where abortion is listed as a right in the Constitution, as well"

The reasoning being expressed here is that since abortion is not "listed" it is not a right. That's exactly the reasoning the 9th was intended to avoid, which is why I cited it. It invalidates that kind of argument regardless of the particular right in question. It doesn't matter if the alleged right is a legitimate one, that's a different question.

[ladylib]

I agree with you. Someone else should bring a test case and see how they rule.

[rwfromkansas]

For the info of some folks: Scalia did not rule on this case because of conflict of interest concerns

[Kate of Spice Island]

We do it all "under God"

With liberty and justice for all."

"...against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC."

[mlo]

You are suggesting there is an enumeration of unenumerated rights? :-)

Note that your list begins, "that among these are...", so no, that's not the full list. Others remain unenumerated.

And that's ignoring other objections that you are citing the Declaration not the Constitution, and that these listed rights are extremely broad and may contain many things within them.

[Gelato]

Although this ruling allows the Pledge of Allegiance to remain intact FOR NOW, it is little cause for celebration. In the long run, with 5 justices agreeing that the Pledge is unconstitutional, this ruling provides only more precedent for the atheist agenda.

It's just a matter of time before the sledgehammer comes down.

[Rightly Biased]

What technicality?

Too bad they just wouldn't rule on the case

[sweetliberty]

Glad to hear. Wonder how many days before one of the socialist scum tries a new approach.

[Torie]

Pretty good. What was the technicality you thought SCOTUS would use to finesse this one?

[suijuris]

They are saying that he lacked the legal standing to bring the case in the first place, due to not having custody of his daughter

The lack of standing should have been determined long before the case ever went to the USSC. How typicall of chickenshit lower courts.

sui

[wardaddy]

I agree but if they truly believed he lacked standing then they would have been overreaching to rule on merits.