Breaking: SCOTUS reverses pledge ruling.

[11 Bravo]

The court held that Michael Newdow lacks the standing to sue on his daughter's behalf over reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Of course not, he's only her father.

[rfranklin]

1. A procedural ruling...

no decision on "Undergod"

[cheezus]

3. yeah, they can only put this off for so long

Sooner or later there'll be a rich, white, young, hetero fundie couple who will be outraged that jews and muslims (and atheists!) are offending "their" god by speaking his name during the pledge.

[shoelace414]

2. grr

Wimps.

Ignore the issue

[Hammie]

39. They didn't ignore anything!

The first issue of any suit is whether or not the plaintiff has legal standing to sue. If he doesn't have standing, then there is no other decision to be made.

The court made the unsurprising discovery that non-custodial parents don't have the right to claim damages on behalf of their offspring. At the time of the ninth circuits ruling, it was widely predicted that it would fail on the issue of standing.

[Dorian Gray]

42. Good explanation

He sounded really upset about the ruling, and espoused a dissapointment in the family courts (I guess regarding the whole custody issue).

This doesn't mean that the case was thrown out without merit. It just means that he doesn't have the right to sue on behalf of his daughter, who he does not have custody of.

To be honest, I always wondered about his reasoning for this case. Not that I don't think that it has merit on its own, but it seemed as though his daughter had no interest in pursuing this action. It was his cause, not hers. That struck me as opportunistic.

I do suspect, in the future, other families will take up this case. Families that do have custodial rights. And then we may see some changes.

[Scooter24]

4. haha

I thought that is where they would go on it...

Though I fully expected the court to overturn it regardless. I've always felt the phrase "under god" was more of an icon for "religious freedom" than an establishment endorsing religion.

[Az]

18. Tell that to the Buddhists

And the Taoists. And the Unitarian Universalists. And the Humanists. And the Church of Freethought. And the Hindus. And the Scientific Pantheists.

There are scores of religions and beliefs that do not hold to the idea of one god.

Freedom of religion is a nice idea. It is poorly conveyed by the phrase Under God.

One Nation or Under God. Both cannot be true.

[MallRat]

5. Lacks STANDING?

:wtf:

What a f*cking cop-out.

-MR

[Sliverofhope]

6. All the better IMO

All we need is the liberal menace of activist courts to kill God right before an election this crucial. This is one time I'm happy to stand on pragmatism over principle.

[MallRat]

9. Actually, you have a good point.

I worried about the same thing about gay marriage here in Massachusetts. It already cost my district a Democrat in the State Senate. A Republican won the seat in a special election because he was against gay marriage- he mobilized the GOP base, and even grabbed a good chunk of the socially-conservative Democrat vote.

Whatever leverage Bush had on the issue, he managed to throw down the toilet by proposing a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Your average paleoconservative doesn't like to play fast and loose with the Founding Fathers.

-MR

[Az]

14. Yeah, its ok, I can handle being oppressed for a bit longer

Its no problem. I still find it funny when they ask me why I use the money with "In God we Trust" written all over it if I don't believe in god. That one is a real kneeslapper. And the whole notion of me not being able to be elected to office if I am actually honest about not believing in god... eh. I am so over that. You know the Founding Fathers knew that slavery was wrong. They just didn't want to touch it. Its ok though. They figured some future generation would tackle that problem. Some future generation will tackle this problem. I can rest easy knowing that someday a nation will stand where all are welcome and none made to feel ostrasized. Sure would be nice to live to see it though.

[Squeech]

17. "In God We Trust"

After three years of BushCo deficits, the above is the only backing the dollar has.

[Heyo]

23. I'm sorry....

Did you just say that because there are the words "Under God" in the pledge of allegience that you are "oppressed"?

I can't help but get a chuckle out of that one..

Heyo

[Az]

25. Then perhaps you should read a little history

Check out what happens when people are made to swear fealty to paticular religious beliefs.

One Nation or Under God. Both cannot be true.

[Heyo]

32. Has anyone....

....made you swear fealty to a religious beleif lately?

[Az]

33. Not for lack of trying

President George HW Bush would love to have my citizenship renounced. The religious right wants to declare this a Christian nation. The purpose of putting the Under God phrase in the pledge was to ferret out atheists who many associated with communism. Same with In God We Trust replacing E Plurebus Unum on our money.

The inclusion of god in both these circumstances have been designed to be deliberately exclusionary. It directly gives a lie to the notion of One Nation, Indivisible, With Liberty And Justice For All. Once our moto was From Many, One. This could be true. But One Nation Under God cannot be true.

[gpandas]

27. unfortunately this church-state thing...

is regressing instead of progressing. this "under god" shit is so hypocritical, anyway. it's more meaningless bullshit drivel that americans love to hear.

[LoneStarLiberal]

19. I Agree, Too

I agree with you.

While one of the three most important issues to me is maintaining the separation of church and state and rolling back the insiduous advances made in this area during Bush the Second's time in the White House, I am also ambivalent about making this a key issue this year.

Most of America believes in God in some form or fashion, and although "under God" is most definitely a modern addition to the Pledge, it has been there since Eisenhower's administration and I see no need to stake our electoral hopes in November to an issue that is a guaranteed loser like this one, an issue that will only serve to give more support to other Republican wedge issues that we must engage and support, issues like women's rights to safe birth control and gay and lesbian marriage.

[sable302]

34. agreed

at least this one is out of the way for the time being. We bomb the hell out of defenseless nations, but we all shake in fear of those activist judges who want to remove God from our lives. :eyes:

[Fovea]

7. Is this SCOTUS like POTUS

in that it doesnt establish precident?
Otherwise they have really screwed things up massively for non custodial parents, no?

[theboss]

8. I figured that would be the ruling

Courts always look to rule on procedural grounds if they can. And this part of the case was always questionable.

[Loonman]

10. Judicial equivalent of "hey, look over there!"

Supreme Whores.......

[Az]

11. Only way out they had

And of course they took it.

[LittleApple81]

12. This is totally unrelated, but when I see the SCOTUS acronym...

I think of scrotum...no, my mind is not in the gutter. But that acronym is weird.

[bluestateguy]

13. We don't need this issue now

On the merits, I think Newdow is probably right, but the issue is out of proportion to its importance. In the grand scheme of things I don't think it's such a big deal. If the Court sided with him the Right would just have another bloody shirt with which to mobilize their base. Pick the fights worth fighting.

[Az]

15. Hearts and minds

Its not about the votes. Really. We are going to win this election. But we are still losing. People hate George Bush. They are going to vote for Kerry because they hate George Bush. It has nothing to do with the policies he stands for. In fact the people are sliding further and further to the right. Having a Dem in the WH is not going to change that. And yet we stand back from an issue that we should be championing. We drop our ideals for a few votes. You think people don't notice that?

We are fighting to change hearts and minds. We not only need to defend Newdow we need to educate the people why they need to defend Newdow. He is not fighting for himself. He is fighting for your right to live free and think free in this society. He is fighting for tolerance of all. He is fighting for We The People. And if we can't find the spine to stand up and fight alongside him then the right has already beaten us.

[sendero]

31. Exactly how did "we"...

... (I assume you mean Dems) do ANYTHING?

"We" had no power in this decision, none whatsoever.

Color me a pragmatist (with Buddhist leanings). I don't think "under god" belongs in the pledge, but it is not an important issue to me.

I'd much rather put a stop to "faith based initiatives", "school vouchers" and other meldings of church and state.

I can get over this, and frankly it is not a winning issue with the public at large, however "right" we may be.

[Az]

37. We

We are in the public. We can discuss ideas. We can break taboos about talking about politics. As long as we let the right dominate the media and the message we will get whatever they decide to let us have.

Freedom is not given. It must be taken and defended. To sit back and hope that those in power will allow us to go about our way while they margenalize others is a fools path. If we do not recognise the necessity of freedom and respect for others it will not be found when it becomes our turn.

Its not about votes. The right has figured this out. They can lose elections and still win. With no one out there challenging the right they simply win by default. Meanwhile we keep chasing after the votes left over. We have to be out there creating the message. We have to defend the idea of equal rights. Equal access to the law. Fairness. We have to be the champions of the left. When they try to force their view on the rest of us there should be an instant reaction so they cannot get away with their nonsense.

[sendero]

40. While I agree...

... with the tenor and concept of your thoughts, I don't agree with their practical application in this instance.

The time to have gone after "under god" was 45 years ago. Rather than waste precious political capital trying to unseat entrenched ideas, lets try to keep new offenses from taking root.

[Jim__]

16. Was it unanimous? Or 5-4?

[Scooter24]

20. It was

8-0...Scalia abstained

[On the Road]

21. This Isn't a High-Priority Issue for Me

although I'm basically an atheist and the "under God" phrase is annoying to me. I also don't expect this particular court to strike down the phrase, and it's better NOT to establish precedent if it will work against you in the future.

the pledge really break down the wall between church and state. The founding fathers drew a big distinction between mentioning God in government contexts and government support of a particular church. The latter is what was prohibited.

[BurtWorm]

22. So they avoided actually ruling on the constitutionality of the pledge.

Real useful decision there. :eyes:

[moondust]

30. Yep. Took the easy way out.

No shirt, no shoes: no service.

[Cheswick2.0]

24. I don't blame the court at all

Nedow was always the wrong person to bring this suit. He brought it in his daughters name. Not only does he not have custody of her, but she is a christian and perfectly happy to say "under God" in the pledge. He started the suit as part of a custody battle and he put his daughter in the middle of a dispute she wanted noting to do with.

If this battle is going to be won it will be by someone who can show actual damage. Some other family should bring the suit.

[Az]

26. I remember when the 9th Court first handed out its descision

Congress Critters couldn't rush to the steps of the capital fast enough to recite the pledge with Under God in it. I recall going to events where the pledge would be read and there was a vindictiveness in the voices of the people that would shout out Under God. There is oppression in this issue. And it is allowed to survive by those who do not step up and protect the ideals of freedom this nation was built upon.

Progress means realising the mistakes we have made in the past and correcting them as we move forward. Religious oppression was part of the very cause that lead to the founding of this nation. It's echoes are still with us.

If something is right you stand up and define why it is right. If something is wrong you stand up and define why it is wrong. If you attempt to appease the public by ducking down and telling them what they want to hear you will not progress. You will stagnate. You will end progress.

[RetroLounge]

29. "vindictiveness in the voices "

Yes, I too remember this.

This is totally about the rich white man's God and your requirement to live under that God.

Total bullshit SCROTUS decision...

RL

[leftyandproud]

28. disgusting..

nothing else to say.

[yella_dawg]

36. Sure there is...

One Nation,
chillin' with the Goddess and the God,
With Liberty and Justice for all.

And say if every freakin' chance you get.

[outinforce]

35. Gee, Isn't This Awful

Imagine.

A decision from a Court.

Disgusting. Vindictive.

And by an 8-0 vote, too.

I guess Courts can sometimes be wrong.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

43. Sorry to rain on your parade... (ah, what the hell. I'm not!)

But this decision was based on a (correct, yes) technicality. Namely, about the custody.

Which means, if anytime, anywhere in the US, a parent that DOES have custody makes the exact same argument, they can't dodge the issue like they did now.

Gee, Isn't This Awful? :evilgrin:

[librechik]

38. what a bunch of clownish cowards

any old excuse to avoid making a just decision according to the constitution. Must avoid that sort of thing at all costs!

Disappointing...How they must have chuckled into their morning croissants at the twisted joke they were perpetuating with perfect impunity!

I'm sad at the reality that is America.

[ThePandaBear]

41. Michael Newdow sucks.

He put the words "Under God" over his child's well being. If this lawsuit would have actually succeeded, His child would become the second most hated person in America, right after him. If he would have taken this lawsuit in his own name, or in the name of someone who isn't 7 years old, I would agree with Michael Newdow. Under God should not be in the pledge because it is a violation of Church and state. But Michael Newdow was not the man to bring forth this lawsuit. He did everything wrong. Luckily, the Supreme Court refused to rule on it, so Someone else can bring forth a new lawsuit. If I was still in high school, I would do it.