Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2004
Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case
10
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 2:31pm

Pete

"My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

Avatar for emmlevin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Tue, 06-15-2004 - 7:21am
I saw Mr. Newdow on TV last night - On the Record on Fox News. He said that he has many emails from people who said "use my name instead". I suspect we will see this issue back in the news sooner rather than later.

Mary

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2001
Tue, 06-15-2004 - 12:53am
Link took me to a story about Hussein, not the Pledge. :=O Oh, well. Probably I'm "a day late & a dollar short," LOL!! :P Anyway, I'll just continue saying "under Goddess and God." Not a big deal. :)) "God" = "deity," after all, not just one religion's interpretation. I wasn't surprised to hear they avoided the constitutional issue completely. Hot potato fer sure, fer sure. :P


Edited 6/15/2004 1:03 am ET ET by gypsywolfwoman


Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(



iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 6:45pm

Well here's my take on the words "under g*d". I think that it should go.

Photobucket

Avatar for emmlevin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 3:47pm
The ninth circuit court ruled that he did have standing but I agree with you that he doesn't. I just don't want to go through it all over again.

I did read that Rehnquist, Thomas and O’Connor in a concurring opinion agreeing that Mr. also argued that the phrase “Under God” in the pledge is constitutional.

I look forward to reading the opinions.

Mary

Avatar for emmlevin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 3:44pm
Yes but they didn't rule on the constitutionality of the words "under God" just that the Ninth Circuit Court was in error because Newdow didn't have legal standing.

Mary

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2004
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 3:32pm
>>Now I'm even more perplexed about the removal of the cross from my county seal....<<

No need to be - the court didn't rule on the merits of the case. It just decided that since Newdow wasn't the custodial parent he didn't have standing to sue in the first place.

They left untouched the question of whether or not the phrase should be in there. For another day, I guess...

Pete

"My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

Avatar for jillianmarie77
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 3:11pm
Did I read that right? IS the pledge going to still contain the word God and be recited in public schools? I must say I'm surprised. I figured it was gone for sure....Hmmmm.

Now I'm even more perplexed about the removal of the cross from my county seal....

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2004
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 2:56pm
Agreed. I was a little disappointed. I was hoping for an actual decision.

While I wouldn't weep to see those words disappear from the pledge, it's not a big deal to me. I don't feel oppressed by their presence. To me, it's just one more example of how the US accomodates atheists...

Pete

"My eyes! The goggles do nothing!"

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 2:54pm
Yes, but whatever they decide, one way or another, would be vulnerable to challenge if they decided it based on Michael Newdow's petition, because the fact is, he DOESN'T have the necessary legal standing. It may be back in court soon, but at least the ruling will stand. It would not in this case.

Alisha

Avatar for emmlevin
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Mon, 06-14-2004 - 2:49pm
Yup but they took the "easy way out", lack of standing. It'll be back before the court before too long.

Mary