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.

[Navy Patriot]

Gutless. This settles nothing. In my opinion, they just couldn't rule because they didn't want to look like fools, yet to be consistent with past rulings, they would have had to rule "Under God" unconsitutional. This was the chicken way out.

Absolutely accurate analysis. Same reason we haven't had a 2A ruling for many years.

[mrs tiggywinkle]

**Newdows no longer married and mother has custody and she had no objection to the daughter saying the pledge. **

Michael Newdow and Sandy Banning were never married. Sandy Banning has no objection to their daughter reciting the pledge with the words *under God*. :o)

[Mr. Lucky]

Example, please.

Roe v. Wade

[mrs tiggywinkle]

Rita Cosby and her 'sources'. ick.

[jwalsh07]

I figured they would punt because the Mom has custody and both Mom and daughter are Christians who have no problem with the POA as stands.

Throw in an election year and I was sure the liberals on the court would wait until a day more to their suiting.

Voila!

[trussell]

Prayers answered ping.

Blessings,
Trussell


If you want on or off my prayer ping list, please let me know. All requests happily honored.

[Alamo-Girl]

PRAISE GOD!!!

[Landru]

"It won't be him, unless he gets custody of his daughter. It can be someobody else who does have custody of their kid, however."

Yup, according to what the ACLU told ABC Radio News (spit}, that's exactly what's going to happen.
ACLU said, "They're Looking for the 'right' case to prosecute."

"SCOTUS did the right thing here. Whatever the merits of this case, this guy had no standing to sue."

Maybe not, but if Limbaugh's insights count for anything, he stated that aside from this minor technicallity, he thought it sounded as if some of the SCJ's were all set to side with the ACLU.

"I don't think this is the last we'll be hearing of this issue, though."

Of course it isn't, and to that we agree.

...the Liberal-Socialists are nothing, if not tenacious.

[Action-America]

This isn't even reason to celebrate. Since no ruling was made, all that has happened, is that the game has been sent into sudden death overtime. At best, there is still a huge fight ahead and at worst, it's only a reprieve for the Pledge, as it stands today. I fail to see how either is cause for celebration.

Since Newdow did not have standing, the SCOTUS did the only thing that they could do, for now. But, count on it. Another case will soon be brought, in the 9th Circuit's jurisdiction, using the same points that got the case this far, but without that technical flaw. If it is sufficiently similar, it will fly through the lower courts and be back to the SCOTUS in relatively short order and we will be going through all of this again.

It's not over till it's over. Until the SCOTUS actually rules, we are in sudden death overtime. Once they actually rule, no further cases will get this far for at least 20 years, when there will be a mostly different court. But for now, another case could pop out of the 9th any day. You don't celebrate when the game goes into overtime. All you do is take a deep breath and a swig of water, because the toughest part of the game is still ahead. I don't mean to dampen your spirits. That's just the way it is.

[Southack]

"The issue, of course, is what students led by teachers in public schools were to be instructed to say."

No, the 9th Circuit ruled that teachers couldn't even voluntarily say the pledge in school, regardless of who they were leading, if anyone (for instance, the pledge might be led by a student, but the 9th said that a teacher couldn't even join in with reciting it).

The rights of all teachers to freely practice their own religious beliefs were being trampled. This wasn't about the school *forcing* all teachers to recite the pledge, but rather it was about preventing teachers from even voluntarily choosing to recite the pledge in school.

Consider, if the SCOTUS had upheld the 9th's ruling, that the Pledge would have become forbidden verbiage. No teacher, while at work, could have uttered those words aloud, ever. Those words in the Pledge would have become illegal in public.

[babaloo]

The case got this far because the 9th Circuit has an agenda. Dismissing the case on a "technicality" was the correct thing to do. If the courts would have ruled on the merits it would have encouraged others with "no standing" to bring cases on who knows what which ties the courts up. Good decision.

[I still care]

So I guess, in a way, this is a smackdown to the 9th circus to vet their cases a little more carefully?

[Rightly Biased]

Isn't law fun

So lets throw out the baby with the bathwater just so we don't rule on the merits of the case.

It just sticks in my crawl.

[LayoutGuru2]

SWEET

[Landru]

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

You are, huh.
Those people aren't ordinary lawyers, y'know. {g}

"They do seem to have unnaturally long life spans."

Especially confounding are the lifespans of the ones who jog in the gay areas of DC.

...at night. :o)

[Condor51]

Yes, after I posted FNC confirmed my hunch. Newdow didn't have standing.

However, this case is another example of the 9th Circus(sic) getting 'it' wrong again. They should have easily come to the same conclusion - no standing. But it almost seems like they make these wrong rulings on purpose, just to keep SCOTUS busy.

Those mopes need to be impeached or at least sanctioned.

[TheSpottedOwl]

I'm not sure why his ex wife became a Christian. Probably out of gratitude from being released from the torment of a bad marriage. Also, she probably converted for the sake of their daughter.

I think the whole lawsuit was childish, vindictive, and a waste of everyone's time. I also have a suspicion that had Mr. Newdow had won his verdict, he would have used it as a basis to sue for custody.

[Condor51]

What a horrible indictment of our legal system. An issue that should be determined at the lowest court has to be adjudicated at the nation's highest court.

Yes it is.
However IIRC the original 'lower court' did rule against Newdow, but the 9th Circus (sic) overturned it on appeal.

This case is a PRIME example of the 9th Circus (sic) getting 'it' consistently wrong. And as you say, they should have easily come to the same conclusion - no standing. But it almost seems like they make these wrong rulings on purpose, just to keep the SCOTUS busy.

Those mopes need to be impeached or at least sanctioned.

[mdmathis6]

I had thought they would rule based on the standing issue!
The man was callously using his daughter as a wedge to force his particular views on the population. The man is an ego maniac, not really concerned about his daughter at all!

[I still care]

Well, if you can argue your young daughter is being "indoctrinated" with Christianity and you are an atheist, you can completely destroy your wife's lifestyle.

As an evangelical, everything we do revolves around other Christians. We go to skating night, special education events, potlucks, picnics, Christian music concerts, coffees, and of course services.

So if he could extend this to bringing her no place a prayer was offered, he could totally divest his wife and daughter of friendship and support.