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.
The presedent with the court is to first find if the issue is properly before them.
If it is not, throw it out.
It would cause problems down the road on other cases if they did not follow their normal procedures.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree with you. Someone else should bring a test case and see how they rule.
Absolutely accurate analysis. Same reason we haven't had a 2A ruling for many years.
With all due respect this is what SCOTUS had to do - and what the 9th Circus (sic) should have done too, because there wasn't a case to begin with.
As Newdow wasn't the legal guardian of his child, he didn't have legal standing. Ergo the whole suit was faulty from the beginning. And IIRC that's why he lost originally in the lower court. But he knew if he appealed to the mopes on the 9th Circus, they'd ignore the law and rule in his favor.
Again SCOTUS didn't duck anything or chicken out because there wasn't a legal case for them to rule on.
This ruling also means that Newdow is done, finished, kaput on the matter of the pledge and his daughter, period. He cannot re-file. This is not like he forgot to dot an "i".
That being said, look for him to file a suit over "In God We Trust" being on our money as there he does have a standing. And IIRC he has threatened to do just that if he lost this case.