Posted on 07/15/2002 3:38:19 AM PDT by 2Trievers
JUDGES ON the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals have some 'splainin' to do. Why did they agree to take a case in which the plaintiff had no legal standing to bring one? Any first-year law student knows that a person cannot file a lawsuit unless he can demonstrate "standing," which basically means he has to show that he was harmed. Michael Newdow, the atheist who filed suit with the charge that the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional, claimed that his daughter was harmed when she was exposed to the Pledge in school. Last week, the girl's mother, who never married Newdow and has sole custody of the daughter, said the child in question was a Christian, goes to church regularly, doesn't mind reciting the Pledge, and was not harmed in any way by its recitation in school. Check mate. The ruling from the 9th Circuit affirming Newdow's charge that the Pledge is unconstitutional states that Newdow "claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to 'watch and listen as her state-employed teacher in her state-run school leads her classmates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God and that our's (sic) is "one nation under God." '" If the daughter herself says she doesn't mind the Pledge, there is no harm done and therefore no legal right to sue. Newdow seems to know this. Now backtracking, he said last week, "The main thrust of this case is not my daughter, it's me." Talk about putting your foot in your mouth. That one admission proves beyond any doubt that the suit is invalid. Given that Newdow's daughter herself says she was not injured by having to "watch and listen" to the Pledge, the suit must be dismissed because Newdow had no standing to bring it. Will the court toss the suit out as it legally has to? Probably not. That the court accepted the invalid suit in the first place, not to mention the loopy decision the court made, reveals that the judges are more interested in creating law than applying it. Who knows, though. Maybe God, in His grace, will reach down in the night and bless the judges with a touch of good sense.
Make that sometimes used, it doesn't happen often.
1) Didn't the child only recently move to California?
2) If parents weren't married and don't cohabitate, the arrangement would be a little different as well.
Oh yeah. In that case, what about taking the child out of state? Normally not allowed, is it? Hope mom got the permission of the courts or an okay from the fruitcake dad. Or maybe she does have sole legal and physical custody without restrictions and this lawsuit (and the other one) is the dad's revenge. Could get messy here in California, the courts are already involved and may take jurisdiction because of the permanent move to the state.
But it does sound like daddy, who has an excessive amount of time on his hands, is making life for mom & child a living hell.
Do you really think that would happen in this part of Kalifornia?
In the interview with Rita Cosby on FOXwire, the mother said she had sole legal custody.
On another thread it comes out that the daughter is being raised as a Christian by her Christian mother, while he's a practicing Jew. So it's possible that the real story is that he's annoyed by this fact.
At a minimum, I hope he has to reimburse the Treasury for his fraud.
"Standing" is one of the greatest threats to liberty and security in American law.
It is clear that laws such as the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the whole regulatory aparatis of the Federal Government that requires complience with what ever some bureaucrat dreams up, are unconstitutional. But ordinary people have no "standing" to challenge these laws. The damage they do to any individual is usually inifitesimal so individuals are declared not to have standing. I cannot go into court to demand that the government protect me from un-uniformed invaders from Mexico because the courts would rule that I do not have standing. Snail-darters have standing, but I do not; and my country is being eaten away.
ML/NJ
He does sound like this guy I knew who bragged about holding his wife in contempt of court over 150 times, including trying to hold her in contempt of court for not delivering the child's bicycle to his house when he demanded he bring it. And, no, he couldn't understand why he was assessed court costs and her legal fees for his litigation either.
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.