Replies

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?

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".