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.

[steveo]

HOO-RAY!

[GreenLanternCorps]

"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."

They were never married. The short version of the story is:

-Christian girl has crisis of faith
-Has fling with athiest doctor
-learns she is pregnant/regains her faith
-raises daughter with two parents with RADICALLY different world views

[jwalsh07]

I'm getting good at this for an amateur. Exactly my prediciton.

[Modernman]

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.

No, the first question that the court always asks is whether the party bringing suit has the standing to do so. If the answer is no, the merits of the case become wholly irrelevant.

[discostu]

They're not supposed to have guts. They're paid to make sure the law is being executed properly, throwing a case out because the plaintiff has no legal standing to bring suit was the right thing to do from day one.

[Modernman]

I hope the technicallity is that the child has no problem saying under God and does so willingly.

If he had standing to sue, her feelings would have been immaterial.

[Modernman]

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

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.

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

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

[ELS]

Not only is today Flag Day, but it's the 50th anniversary of the pasing of the law to put "under God" in the pledge (June 14, 1954)!

[hattend]

BTTT

[Modernman]

There are plenty of times they should throw things out on technicalities yet choose not to because they can't resist comment

Example, please. The only reason this case got as far as it did was because the 9th Circuit was being its usual activist self. Even the majority of liberal judges in most other circuits would have probably thrown this case out for lack of standing.

[Modernman]

How can they? The USSC is the end of the line, who will they appeal to? The UN?

SCOTUS didn't rule that the Pledge is constitutional- they just ruled that Newdow had no standing to challenge its constitutionality.

[Strategerist]

Not only is today Flag Day, but it's the 50th anniversary of the pasing of the law to put "under God" in the pledge (June 14, 1954)!

Interesting how we won World War II with a generation of people who had never said "Under God" in the Pledge.

And, lets, see, the first generation of kids to say "Under God" in the pledge went to college and became young adults in....the 60s.

[discostu]

That's part of the definition of an activist court. If they should throw out a case but rule on it anyway then they are legislating not adjudicating. Nobody has respect for most of them anymore, but this time they got it right.

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe it's just me, but this decision leaves me wondering why the atheists who are intent on eliminating the phrase "under God" from the pledge would have found a better plaintiff for this case than someone like Newdow whose standing was in question right from the start.

[MeekOneGOP]

Dear Mr. Newdow: Crawl back under your rock now .....

Fox News Alert - Pledge case dismissed by USSC

Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case on Technicality

Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed on Monday a constitutional challenge to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance recited by schoolchildren, without deciding the key church-state issue.

The justices ruled that California atheist Michael Newdow lacked the legal right to bring the challenge in the first place. "We conclude that Newdow lacks standing," Justice John Paul Stevens declared in the opinion. [Meek note here: His wife has custody of the child is the reason, is what FOX News is reporting].

The ruling came down on the 50th anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge. Congress adopted the June 14, 1954, law in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Kerberos]

"Nevermind the 'under God' that was added later, the pledge itself was written by a socialist to advance a socialist agenda."

Shhhh, we're not suppose to mention that, everyone knows the pledge was written by God.

[Thane_Banquo]

The Constitution triumphs over irrationality.

What was the technicality? I'm guessing they found Newdow couldn't show injury, since his daughter is a Christian.

[MplsSteve]

Unfiortunately, the fact that this case was dismissed on a technicality will only encourage another Newdow out there to file a suite, claiming the Pledge is unconstitutional.

I'm glad it was dismissed...but this is only a temporary victory.

[Thane_Banquo]

It does not immediately follow that abortion is among the unenumerated rights spoken of in the 9th Amendment. The very question at hand is whether abortion is among the unenumerated rights, so the 9th Amendment merely returns us to the original issue.