Topic: SCOTUS Upholds "under God" (Read 5111 times)

reimero · « **on:** June 14, 2004, 09:41:24 AM »

From Yahoo News:
The Supreme Court has ruled that "Under God" is to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #1 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:46:38 AM »

Quote

The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

Bah... a technicality. I've been following this closely... his case was sound, he just doesn't have custody of her, that's all. In fact, he was expecting this to be the most likely result, according to an interview I read with him a month ago or so.

reimero · « **Reply #2 on:** June 14, 2004, 09:52:25 AM »

Classic judicial sidestep here: the ruling basically means that parents who don't have custody of their kids can't sue on their kids' behalf.

xolik · « **Reply #3 on:** June 14, 2004, 10:43:40 AM »

Plus I thought that the childs mother is for the "under God" part anyways, and since she's got custody, somebody else is going to have to try this. Personally, I have no problem with the "under God" part, but that's entirely because of my own religious bias for that. I won't be protesting in the streets if that eventually gets removed. If it is decided to be unconstitutional, then let it be removed. I can still say it anyways under my breath so neener, neener, nee-ner!

P.S.
I do realize that the whole point of it is to remove the perceived govt backing of religion by this phrase. I'm actually fine with that as well. It's one thing to be able to add that phrase while reciting it on your own free will because you want to involve your God, but it's an entirely other thing when the state tells you it's part of the pledge by design and must be included.

reimero · « **Reply #4 on:** June 14, 2004, 10:48:13 AM »

I don't see the "under God" as being problematic, particularly since it's already been established that you don't have to say it or even recite the Pledge. But that's just my (well-documented) opinion.

Also, I saw somewhere that some 80% of Americans back keeping "under God" intact in the Pledge. Getting 80% of Americans to agree on ANYTHING is pretty significant. I'm curious to see how this plays out.

xolik · « **Reply #5 on:** June 14, 2004, 10:58:22 AM »

In a recent poll, a whopping 99.9% of all Americans believe that nun beating is cruel and should be stopped. The other .1% post on this board.

reimero · « **Reply #6 on:** June 14, 2004, 11:29:01 AM »

Quote from: xolik

In a recent poll, a whopping 99.9% of all Americans believe that nun beating is cruel and should be stopped. The other .1% post on this board.

Law · « **Reply #7 on:** June 14, 2004, 02:18:58 PM »

Quote from: reimero

The Supreme Court has ruled that "Under God" is to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case.

Well, actually, no they didn't. They ruled that the case is dead in the water as the plaintiff has no legal standing. Thus, the phrase stays, but the SC actually used a technicality to dodge a bullet, they didn't rule on anything.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #8 on:** June 14, 2004, 02:27:58 PM »

Quote from: Law

Quote from: reimero
The Supreme Court has ruled that "Under God" is to remain in the Pledge of Allegiance on the grounds that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the case.

Well, actually, no they didn't. They ruled that the case is dead in the water as the plaintiff has no legal standing. Thus, the phrase stays, but the SC actually used a technicality to dodge a bullet, they didn't rule on anything.

Exactly.

What peeves me is the fact that every headline I'm seeing on pretty much every news site today regarding this case is essentially saying "Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge" (on Yahoo) and "Justices Uphold Pledge Of Allegiance" (LA Times).

Though to be fair, every article I've read on this today has clarified that, but the headlines are very misleading.

Is it me, or is that just really biased to present it that way?

reimero · « **Reply #9 on:** June 14, 2004, 02:28:33 PM »

It's all in how you interpret it: the 9th Circuit was overruled, therefore the phrase is to be reinserted. But it's by no means a matter of "it's Constitutional." It's just a matter of, "he doesn't have the right to bring this case. Try again."

pbsaurus · « **Reply #10 on:** June 14, 2004, 02:29:36 PM »

So when is the next case coming?

reimero · « **Reply #11 on:** June 14, 2004, 02:48:28 PM »

It's gonna have to wind its way through the court system again. I imagine we'll probably see another filing in district court within the next couple of weeks. It'll hit SCOTUS again in, maybe 2005 or 2006.

Law · « **Reply #12 on:** June 14, 2004, 03:59:06 PM »

Quote from: reimero

It's all in how you interpret it: the 9th Circuit was overruled, therefore the phrase is to be reinserted. But it's by no means a matter of "it's Constitutional." It's just a matter of, "he doesn't have the right to bring this case. Try again."

When a matter is denied standing it is a judgment. If a case is decided on its merits, it is a ruling or a decision. It's not interpretation, in the legal profession it is the difference between new law and who give a shit. This decision is filed under the who gives a shit to all except family law lawyers who may try and bring future guardian constitutional actions by non-custodial parents. Otherwise, bupkiss.

And Demo, I think they all know they're wrong with the headlines, but if they put the facts in bold, no one would care. So... glitz it is.

Edit: for embarassing grammar errors...

reimero · « **Reply #13 on:** June 14, 2004, 04:02:24 PM »

You know what they say... never let the facts get in the way of a good grudge!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #14 on:** June 14, 2004, 04:04:04 PM »

Welly well well.

I hereby withdraw my bitching and moaning about the headlines. It looks like almost all the major news sites have changed their wording to a less slanted and more accurate wording, including the one I actually linked on Yahoo in my last post.

I stand corrected.

HeavyJay · « **Reply #15 on:** June 14, 2004, 07:10:22 PM »

I don't mind the 'under God' bit at all, and I'd actually be a bit upset if it was removed. I don't hold any religious beliefs at all (and I've even been known to taunt a few bible bangers *cough*), but it's something I've said since I was five. Why change it because it upsets a few people?

Law · « **Reply #16 on:** June 14, 2004, 07:47:52 PM »

We had a department lunch today and were discussing the fact the SC has lately been granting cert to sensitive cases and then sidestepping them on technicalities or procedural issues. The Pledge decision came down with two business law decisions, in one of which the Court made a long discussion of Bankruptcy and Tax law and then sidestepped the whole question posed to them.

So, we're wondering, are they taunting people, or are these tactical moves? The next few months could be interesting to see what they do.

Binoboy · « **Reply #17 on:** June 14, 2004, 11:26:24 PM »

Uh.. wasn't Lawrence v. Texas rather "sensitive"? Hehehe...

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #18 on:** June 15, 2004, 12:32:13 AM »

I was listening to Sean Hannity today at work (I like to enrage myself) and he was interviewing aforementioned atheist and some "expert" on Constitutional law (who I will call 'Douchebag'):

Hannity: And here today we've got THE GREAT ONE, Mr. Douchebag, upon whose anus my lips will be firmly pressed for the remainder of this segment. Also, some dick who doesn't like God.

Newdow: Well, my real problem with the--

Douchebag: ISN'T IT TRUE MISTER NEWDOW, MISTER NEWDOW, ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOUR DAUGHTER WANTED TO SAY THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? AND ISN'T IT TRUE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE CUSTODY OF YOUR DAUGHTER WHEN YOU BROUGHT THIS TO THE COURT AND DIDN'T I TELL YOU THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN TO YOU DIDN'T I MISTER MISTER NEEEEWWWWDOWWWWW?!?

Newdow: I--

Douchebag: LISTEN TO ME MISTER NEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWDDODOWOWOWOWOW, I'M TRYING TO ED-YOO-CATE YOU!

Hannity: Ha ha, that's great Douchebag. Yeah, he lost the case.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #19 on:** June 15, 2004, 08:03:14 AM »

Sean Hannity. Isn't that the guy from Faux News?

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #20 on:** June 15, 2004, 10:08:38 AM »

I don't watch Fox News, so I have absolutely no idea. All I know about Sean Hannity (aside from his needing a good push down a flight of stairs) is that he has his own talk radio show...and he does 90% of the ads for the show himself.

Which, of course, makes for great comedy...

Hannity: ...and we will all miss Regan, a great President, the great uniter, and most of all, a great man.

Hannity: Friends, Father's day is fast approaching, and what tells your dad you love him more than a live lobster? Yes, just dial 1-800-LIVELOB and have a fresh, succulent lobster shipped directly to you! (real ad)

Binoboy · « **Reply #21 on:** June 15, 2004, 10:15:16 AM »

A show where Hannity is NOT the bigger annoyance?!
Wow.

He must be losing his touch.

Oh and yeah, he's the conservative on that Crossfire (won't even make that pun) ripoff with the limp-dicked "liberal" Colmes.

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: SCOTUS Upholds "under God" (Read 5111 times)