Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 10:35 am
The chicken supreme court sidestepped this controversal issue by raising a phony technicality to avoid having to make a possibly unpopular decision. Shame on them! That's what they get paid to do. ---BBB
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,625 • Replies: 5
No top replies

cicerone imposter
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 10:43 am
We can chalk this up to another boondoggle by our supreme court. Does chicken have wings? Maybe they just know how to lay eggs.
0 Replies
Reply Mon 14 Jun, 2004 11:52 am
Actually they didn't sidestep it. They threw the case out ruling that the claimant did not have standing to bring the suit. So it's still an open question and somebody with standing can still present it to the Supremes. Had they ruled, it would have been much more of a done deal.

(I agree however that they chickened out.)
0 Replies
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 10:33 am
I feel the claimant did have standing to bring the suit. The Supremes purported to base its decision on Calif law concerning the rights of non-custodial parents. But no Calif case ever has held that a father lacked the authority to sue on behalf of his child. In fact Calif law is clear that both parents, custodial and non-custodial, have an equal say in the religious upbringing of their child. I agree with you Foxfyre, they chickened out. But they cannot dodge that phrase forever........?
0 Replies
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 10:40 am
I think they made the right decision based on the facts of the case. (They still chickened out, but they only postponed having to take a stand one way or the other)

You had two parents with differing views of raising their child. One parent (the custodial one) had no problem with their child saying the pledge as is while the other one had a problem. A ruling on the merits of the case would mean a recognition that the rights of a non-custodial parent took precedence over those of a custodial. So I think they did the right thing in not ruling on the merits.

But fear not, those of you who wish for the phrase to be struck because you are somehow harmed by it. It will make its way back to the Supreme Court I am sure.
0 Replies
Reply Tue 15 Jun, 2004 12:12 pm
I have no doubt that this will come up again, particularly now that it's clear what will be tolerated (the kid has to sue, not the parent).
0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/24/2024 at 03:35:54