Pledge ruling cannot stand: Plaintiff had no standing, case must be killed

Union Leader ^ | July 15 2002

[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.

[Keith in Iowa]

It's looking more & more like the plantif not only has no standing, but may have committed perjury in his claims about his daughter. I hope they go after him on that...

[gr8eman]

Maybe God, in His grace, will reach down in the night and bless the judges with a touch of good sense.

I doubt it! They will probably go by the way of that O'Hair lady!

[syriacus]

What will Katie Couric's take on this be? Newdow could easily be labeled a "Radical Left Wing Nut Job" by the media, if they cared to do so.

Fox and Friends had this correctly pegged several weeks ago when they mentioned Newdow's prior attempts to remove mention of God from American public life.

The Pawn and the Pledge

        Newdow’s daughter was little more than a pawn in this case, a stepping stone he used in the culmination of a decade-long crusade to advance his personal views on the Establishment Clause. He had failed in a number of earlier attempts to remove any reference to God from the public square. One involved a lawsuit against President George W. Bush’s 2000 inauguration, which Newdow argued was overly religious. By simple luck of the draw, 9th Circuit Judges Alfred Goodwin and Stephen Reinhardt (in a 2-1 decision) put Michael Newdow on the map. Next stop? Newdow recently announced a lawsuit against the "In God We Trust" motto printed on all U.S. currency. The wildfire rages on. This one may never be contained.

[aristeides]

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.

Last week you said the two parents had shared custody. Are you sure that's right?

[Catspaw]

There are two types of custody: legal and physical. Mom may well have sole legal custody of the child (as is the case with most paternity cases). However, they may share physical custody of her--that's the division of time each parent spends with the child.

[aristeides]

The Ninth Circuit's decision depended on a right they said the father had to determine his daughter's religious upbringing. I would think that that right goes with legal custody, not physical.

[syriacus]

Newdow "claims that his daughter is injured when she is compelled to 'watch and listen

Hmm....who actually wants her to 'watch and listen' rather than participate in reciting the pledge?

Newdow is the one who doesn't want her to participate.. Therefore he should sue himself for attempting to 'injure' her, (by his desire to banish her to the ranks of the injured onlookers).

Failing that, maybe his daughter can sue him for defamation of character.

[2Trievers]

I like the way you think! LOL &;-)

[Catspaw]

At least in Wisconsin, sole legal custody means that ONLY the custodial parent makes the major decisions in the child's life--choice of school, choice of religion, where the child lives (within the restrictions of the law) etc. And that would probably extend to being a litigant in a lawsuit, or being used by a parent to be a litigant in a lawsuit. From the parts of the interview I saw with the mom last night, the mother wasn't even told about the lawsuit. I don't know at which point she learned of it--I may have been when the Court of Appeals issued its decision. Given the backlash to the lawsuit, Newdow may well be endangering his child.

I hope that some of California's legal beagles chime in on this one.

[RGSpincich]

In California, the prevailing custom is to award a joint legal custody to the parents, sole physical custody to one and visitation to the other. Child support is usually paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. Wonder if he makes his child support payments religiously?

[syriacus]

I like the way you think!

You and the other folks at Free Republic sure are an inspiring bunch. : )

[two23]

Last Night on Fox Wire with Rita Cosby; Rita interviewed the child's mother, who told Rita that Newdow actually celebrated Passover etc.
So....that's why he even stumbles over his own views of atheism.
(Shepard Smith exposed a lot of Newdows inconsistancies in an interview the previous Friday afternoon--talk about a worm on a hot plate....)!!!!

[Catspaw]

Is that in all cases--marital and paternity?

But if mom says she has sole legal custody, it puts a whole new spin on things, doesn't it?

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

Question: From what country is Michael Newdow? He speaks English with a slight foreign accent.

[Jay W]

The cause of Liberty and Justice for all will be served when Michael Newdow is behind bars in prison for the crime of committing perjury. May he end up in a cell with a horny Bubba who will do to him what Newdow tried to do with our Pledge.

[RGSpincich]

Further, joint legal custody is normally awarded if they both show up and ask for it (married or not) , it is no indication of the fitness of either parent. Custodial and visitation issues are more complex and the courts often require evaluation, investigation and psychological examinations if the parents are battling.
Marital cases are only different in that there are property settlements to consider in addition to the child issues. Biforcation is often used to seperate marital status and child custody issues from property issues.

[SauronOfMordor]

Last Night on Fox Wire with Rita Cosby; Rita interviewed the child's mother, who told Rita that Newdow actually celebrated Passover etc.

So, is he really against religion, or just against Christianity in the public sphere?

[kcvl]

crime of committing perjury

Would it be considered perjury? I'm asking because I don't know. I know that he lied to the country but what did he tell the court?

[RGSpincich]

But if mom says she has sole legal custody, it puts a whole new spin on things, doesn't it?

If she is right, it does.