Dad regards pledge case as his 'duty'

The Sacramento Bee ^ | 7/16/2002 | Jennifer Garza

[Utah Girl]

Of all the names he's been called in the past few weeks -- and there have been plenty -- Mike Newdow can't quite understand how someone could call him a bad father. Or a traitor.

Newdow is the Sacramento man who challenged the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance -- and won.

[Tired of Taxes]

Who's making a "knee-jerk" reaction, glory? I simply want the facts while everyone else is reacting hysterically.

[dsutah]

I'm wondering if she began to see him in a different light before she decided to marry him. That is, if they ever considered it. I don't know their particular situation, but he seems to be a very controling, svengali type, who wanted to control her and their child. There's a take charge type, who people can respect, and look up to. On the other hand, there's a petty tyrant!

She may have been ok with a slightly bossy, take charge sort, to a degree. But he may have been getting dictatorial with her and the little girl, and too overbearing. We really don't know what happened, we can only guess. She is a Christian woman. To some of them, a confirmed Atheist may make them aftaid for the soul of the child, and of her own.

[Tired of Taxes]

He also named Bill Clinton in his original complaint filed in 2000. You can view it on his website, though I don't have time to post a link right now. So, apparently, he's not partisan.

[Tired of Taxes]

The quote seems to be from the court's ruling, but the direct quote from Newdow to which the ruling refers is in quotation marks (""). The word "injured" isn't in quotation marks.

I can't read the ruling anymore because something is wrong with my computer (I think). I probably have to get rid of some cookies.

[savedbygrace]

The quote IS from the Court's ruling. The Court is saying that Newdow made the claim that his daughter was injured by listening to the Pledge. It makes no difference whether "injured" is part of the quote or not. The Court says he made that claim.

Maybe the Court is lying, hmmmm?

[Tired of Taxes]

Yes, I said the quote was from the court's ruling. But it doesn't appear to be from Newdow's BRIEF.

A plaintiff first files a "brief" outlining his claims. A "ruling" is what the judges write in making their decision. I cannot access Newdow's "brief" for this case; I can only access Newdow's "brief" (or "original complaint") that he filed in the year 2000. And, in that "brief", there is no claim that his daughter is an atheist. He names himself as the "plaintiff" and he is basing his case on his right as a parent. He doesn't even claim that his daughter is "offended" in it.

The quote is from the court's "ruling" which the judges wrote, and they only put in direct quotes (quotation marks) a phrase that appears to be from Newdow's brief. The direct quote from Newdow's brief doesn't use the word "injured". So far, no one here has been able to verify what Newdow claimed in his "brief".

[Khepera]

Try sitting on the buss with a string hanging out of your mouth. Good way to keep others from sharing your seat.

[Khepera]

Great reply.

[homeschool mama]

**Try sitting on the buss with a string hanging out of your mouth. Good way to keep others from sharing your seat. **

Speaking from personal experience...? :o)

[Khepera]

It's just a ploy.

[flyervet]

You need to explain why the Appeals Court wrote, in their ruling:

Why? It's a matter of opinion, not a lie, much like parents who choose to take their children out of sex ed classes because those classes will prove damaging to them. In any event, this opinion didn't form the basis of his claim, which was that the words "under God" violate the Separation clause, nor did it have much impact on the ultimate decision rendered by the Ninth.

Also, you are interpreting his move to be near his daughter in a kind way.

The Ninth is an enormous district. He could have moved anywhere from Hawaii to Alaska. He had his choice of several states, and within California of literally thousands of cities, many arguably more desireable than Sacramento, including San Francisco, which is a considerable distance from Sacramento and is the home of the Ninth itself. Yet Michael Newdow chose to move to the same city as his daughter, not the Court of Appeals.

[flyervet]

He moved from Florida to California to follow his daughter. As anyone who has ever had a cross-country move can tell you, it's a major life change under the best of circumstances.

[flyervet]

He doesn't give Hitlery Clinton's left testicle about that little girl, he's an Atheist ACTIVIST who is educated well enough to know where the most leftist courts are located!

Actually, he moved to the same state as his daughter after her mother ripped her away from her father by moving three thousand miles away, so clearly the mother is responsible for the change of venue. Secondly, as I said in an earlier response, the Ninth is huge- he could have moved anywhere from Alask to Hawaii and still have filed in the Ninth. In fact, he could have even chosen to move to San Francisco, where the Ninth is physically located, yet he chose to move a good distance away to Sacramento, where his daughter lives with her mother.

[flyervet]

While I am immune to condescension, I would again request that you save your prayers for people who need it, specifically the thousands, if not millions, of fathers who are at the mercy of the mothers of their children.

[homeschool mama]

She has sole physical custody of her daughter. She can move to Siberia if she so chooses.

[flyervet]

And he is free to follow. In fact, I'm certain he would; this is a man who is clearly committed to being a part of his daughter's life, regardless of how hostile her mother may be. More men should be like Michael Newdow in this respect.

[homeschool mama]

**And he is free to follow. In fact, I'm certain he would; this is a man who is clearly committed to being a part of his daughter's life, regardless of how hostile her mother may be. More men should be like Michael Newdow in this respect. **

How is the mother being hostile? Because she, within her rights as sole custody of her daughter, moved to California? Because she is standing up for her daughter? Because she has a right to free speech? Why, in your mind, is she the monster in this?

[flyervet]

Assuming that what you wrote is true and the mother of his child moved across country for no other reason than to get away from him (in your words), that's hostility, plain and simple. From your own posts, this woman wants to rob her own daughter of her father for no other reason than the fact that the mother doesn't particularly like the father's personality. That's selfish and wrong. The only people who could justify something like this are hairy-legged anti-fatherhood feminazi types and those who have fallen under their spell.

[RGSpincich]

it's a major life change under the best of circumstances.

He did not uproot his entire life as a large part of his entire life was spent in California and he was quite faminliar with the state. He had a medical license there since 1982.

[wordsofearnest]

I think people like this should not breed.