Replies

The quote in number 95 doesn't appear to be from Newdow's "brief". You may be confusing his "brief" with the "ruling" made by the court.

Your quote in number 95 was:

Newdow does not allege that his daughter's teacher or school district requires his daughter to participate in reciting the Pledge. Rather, he 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 class mates in a ritual proclaiming that there is a God, and that our's [sic] is 'one nation under God.'"

That doesn't sound like it's from Newdow's brief.

Furthermore, again, your opinion that the girl wasn't "injured" doesn't mean that she wasn't, but I already addressed that in my last post.

That's a quote from the Court's ruling. IOW, the Court is representing that Newdow claimed the little girl was injured by listening to the Pledge being recited. The Court even seems to be quoting from Newdow's pleading.

If the Court misrepresented this issue, then you'd expect to hear Newdow jumping all over it. Instead, all he's said is that he doesn't think he made that claim.

But since, without that claim, his case becomes much weaker, he's not about to rock the boat.

Surely, one of FR's legal eagles can dig up Newdow's pleadings from one of those legal search sites. One_, how about it?