Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fox News Alert - Pledge case dismissed by USSC
Fox news

Posted on 06/14/2004 7:25:52 AM PDT by I still care

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


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: churchandstate; flagday; lawsuit; newdow; pledge; pledgeofallegiance; pledgeofallegience; prayerlist; undergod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-168 next last
To: I still care

I don't know, sometimes a good "Get The Hell Out Of My Court" is OK too...


21 posted on 06/14/2004 7:35:12 AM PDT by Damocles (sword of...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care

ALL RIGHT!!!


22 posted on 06/14/2004 7:35:41 AM PDT by veronica (Viva la Reagan revolution....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
That seems to be what Pete Williams is saying on MSNBC

Pete Williams successfully figured out the USSC decision in the Florida Recount almost instantly, and about 15 minutes before everyone else; he's obviously a fast reader with a clue, so he's probably right.

23 posted on 06/14/2004 7:36:03 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: I still care

I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all ...


24 posted on 06/14/2004 7:36:30 AM PDT by Pegita ('Tis so sweet to trust in Jesus, just to take Him at His Word ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: codercpc

The technicality was "this is stupid, why waste our time on it." That is good enough for me.


25 posted on 06/14/2004 7:36:41 AM PDT by SLB ("We must lay before Him what is in us, not what ought to be in us." C. S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

I wanna know what Rita Cosby says first...


26 posted on 06/14/2004 7:37:19 AM PDT by Petronski (Ronald Reagan: 1015 electoral votes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past

Not gutless, the court must consider whether issue is ripe or the parties have standing in order to proceed with analyzing the merits of the case. (This would also have been true of the 9th circuit, but they were in one of their typical militant races to the Supreme Court).

Many of us recognized this issue when it first arose at the state level. I wish I could find my previous posts on it.


27 posted on 06/14/2004 7:37:42 AM PDT by Boatlawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: I still care

Does that mean he doesn't pass go, and collect a million dollars?

I think all this started when his ex wife became a born again Christian.


28 posted on 06/14/2004 7:37:42 AM PDT by TheSpottedOwl (Torrance Ca....land of the flying monkeys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
Get ahold of yourself. (figuratively speaking, of course)

The Court's Decision was exactly the right one. The plaintiff was not the custodial parent. He lacked standing to bring the action and federal courts, being courts of limited jurisdiction, may only rule where there is an actual case or controversy.

This is a victory for a limited judiciary.

29 posted on 06/14/2004 7:37:53 AM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: I still care
Praise God!!

Pray for W and The Truth

30 posted on 06/14/2004 7:38:22 AM PDT by bray (Let's win one more for the Gipper!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care
Now we wait for ACLU to pick it up (groan)
31 posted on 06/14/2004 7:38:27 AM PDT by The Bandit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InvisibleChurch
"maybe now they can go back and see where abortion is listed as a right in the Constitution, as well"

Article [IX]
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

32 posted on 06/14/2004 7:39:27 AM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: I still care

This is a case of a half a loaf being far better than none at all.

Yes, the SCOTUS ducked the central issue, but we can still recite the Pledge with the words 'under God' included.

That is worth a WHOO-WHOO! (not Nurse Fuzzy-Wuzzy?)


33 posted on 06/14/2004 7:42:27 AM PDT by ex 98C MI Dude (Proud Member of the Reagan Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I still care
Any time that little pr!ck Newdow spends all his own money
going all the way up to the Supreme Court, just to get
shot down on a procedural defect, well that's too cool.
34 posted on 06/14/2004 7:42:40 AM PDT by Petronski (Ronald Reagan: 1015 electoral votes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

Pete Williams is a lawyer, I think.


35 posted on 06/14/2004 7:44:03 AM PDT by veronica (Viva la Reagan revolution....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past; joanie-f; FBD; scholar
"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."

That's exactly what the pack of robed, cowardly SOBs did again, too.

The a-hole will be back to get those two words removed as sure as God made little green apples.

Only next time, there'll be no "technicalities".

...for the USSC to use in obfuscating their lawful responsibily.

36 posted on 06/14/2004 7:44:30 AM PDT by Landru (Indulgences: 2 for a buck.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Dan(9698)
Precisely. This decision may not settle the issue of the pledge, but it settles this matter. It is a CONSTITUIONAL principle that one can bring suit only if one has standing to sue. That protects against an unlawful infringment of one's rights.

The SCOTUS made the right decision. If you can settle a matter without dealing with the substance, that's good legal decision-making. The courts can only adudicate cases and controversies.

37 posted on 06/14/2004 7:45:04 AM PDT by Don'tMessWithTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: The Bandit

Exactly...another "parent" will file now and do the same damn thing. This solves nothing.


38 posted on 06/14/2004 7:45:47 AM PDT by My Favorite Headache (Rush 30th Anniversary Tour Tickets On Sale Now!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: All

While I would have preferred them actually ruling on the case, and it does make them appear gutless.....this dismissal points the finger at Newdow's ethics and legal ability MORE THAN SIMPLY RULING AGAINST THE CASE would have done.

Now people want to know why the court decided this guy didn't even have standing, something a good lawyer...which he is not...would have realized would have been the case. He is now the laughingstock of a nation.

Simply ruling against him would not have made him the laughingstock of the nation.

Someday some other idiot will try to stop "under God." The court will later have time to rule on it I am sure.

I hope that in throwing the case out, they also made it impact the 9th Circuit decision, so folks in that circuit can now say the pledge.

This way of handling it did serve to humiliate Newdow more than just ruling against him IMO though.


39 posted on 06/14/2004 7:45:49 AM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" -- Abraham Lincoln)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: TheSpottedOwl

That has to be difficult for someone who is a militant atheist like Newdow. I wonder what happened there? Did she become a Christian after they split, because they split, or he divorce her because she became a Christian? Or did she become one because his athiesm left such a bad taste?


40 posted on 06/14/2004 7:46:24 AM PDT by I still care
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 161-168 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson