[sweet_diane]

I'm not surprised by this. The dad always seemed to squirm when asked about his daughter.

[Jeff Head]

Seems like the injured party is the girl ... but not by the pledge in the least ... by THE FATHER!

He should be sued and the case dropped and set aside forthwith. There NEVER WAS A CASE.

You can bet these Judges knew this too. They are all activists against the principles and foundation this nation was established upon IMHO.

[VRWC_minion]

Divorce no-no 101: Never put kids in the middle of a parental dispute.

[Tired of Taxes]

Newdow is a father who wants to be involved in his daughter's life. Whether the general public thinks he should be or not isn't the point. Newdow's atheism never stopped this mother from accepting child care payments.

Hmmm... Where are the Father's Rights people now? I guess "father's rights" only apply when the father believes in an imaginary omnipotent being, huh?

[StockAyatollah]

So this case was based on a fraudulent premise, just like Roe v. Wade.

[gubamyster]

ping

If you haven't already seen, I thought you might be interested in more info about your hero Newdow.

[valkyrieanne]

If there's no injured party, how can there be a lawsuit? Did Dada perjure himself, perhaps?

[pray4liberty]

Banning, who declined through her attorney to be interviewed, has full custody of the child, which Newdow also is challenging in court.

Oho, now the truth emergeth. It was never about the Pledge, more about how the mother is raising her child and what desperate measures the father is willing to take to gain possession of her.

He readily admit he's the injured party, but since he isn't going to elementary school anymore, there is no true injured party. Case closed. The judges must be smoking crack.

[Crossbow Eel]

 
 

This guy doesn't even have custody !

[Hard_Pill_To_Swallow]

I'm still waiting to hear the counter-argument.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the government cannot endorse religious belief precisely because such an endorsement alienates nonbelievers. Nevertheless, in 1954 Congress passed a law endorsing monotheism, which alienates atheists, to say nothing of religions which have more than one god. Therefore the 1954 Act of Congress inserting the words "under God" into the Pledge of Allegiance was an unconstitutional breach of the establishment clause.