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

To: Condor51
I'll bet the technicality was that Newdow didn't have standing in the case as he didn't - and still doesn't, have legal custody of his daughter.

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.

84 posted on 06/14/2004 8:30:17 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]


To: AndrewC
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.

138 posted on 06/14/2004 12:09:51 PM PDT by Condor51 (May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't. -- Gen G. Patton Jr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies ]

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