More on the Pledge

[littlebillie]

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pledge12jul12.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dcalifornia

 

Check out the story at this site - tho' I'm sure a lot of you have bumped into it elsewhere already.

 

One thing I've noticed here in the forums - I think - is that regardless of how anyone beleives a prayer should be worded, whether someone thinks gays should be admitted or excluded - whatever - EVERYONE thinks its the kids that come first, and the kids should NOT be used in the backroom politicking...

 

...unlike folks who just want their names to become some footnote part of legal history, and don't care who they use to make it happen.

 

 

ARRGGHHHHHHH

[NJCubScouter]

Speaking of Aaarrgghh, in order to read this story I had to register for the LA Times web site and tell them my address, phone number and annual income. I hate that. But I had not heard about this previously.

 

It is unfortunate that people on both sides of the issue are using this little girl to make their point. I am not even sure how she necessarily came into it at all. When the decision first came out, it appeared to me that the girl was the plaintiff in the case, with her father acting as "guardian." This is the routine way in which lawsuits are brought on behalf of children. (Just to get technical, the title of the case is usually "Father, as Guardian ad Litem for Daughter, vs. Whoever" or "Daughter, by Father, her Guardian ad Litem, vs. Whoever." The exact form depends on the state and the lawyer representing the plaintiff.)

 

But this story states that the girl was not named in the lawsuit. Since the father is not the one being made to be in a school classroom while others are saying the pledge, I don't see how he could bring the lawsuit only in his own name. (This is the concept of "standing": You cannot just sue when you see something wrong, you have to be personally affected by it. I have still only read the beginning of the "Pledge" decision, but I did get to the part where the Court approved the dismissal of the case against one school district that the girl may attend in the future; the only district "she" could sue was the one she actually attended.)

 

So now I'm just confused. As I think I said before, media reporting about legal events almost always leaves something to be desired from a lawyers' perspective, because the writers rarely know what they are writing about.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Dr. Newdow has standing because, as a parent, the school is infringing on his right to decide what kind of religious instruction his daughter receives. It's even more important when (as in this case) the parents disagree on religion, because the public school shouldn't promote one parent's view.

 

You can read the whole decision here:

http://sfgate.com/gate/acrobat/2002/06/26/prayer_16423.pdf

 

Here's where it explains that Dr. Newdow has standing:

 

Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter. Parents have a right to direct the religious upbringing of their children and, on that basis, have standing

to protect their right.

[sctmom]

The girl's mother has full custody of the child. So does Newdow have any rights to say what happens in the education of the girl?

 

Mr. Newdow lost all respect I possibly had for him with the statement of "This is about me now my daughter". As a parent, he should have thought about how this will impact his daughter.

 

[acco40]

On a lighter note, some background information on how the "under God" was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance (don't worry, you don't have to subscribe):

 

http://detnews.com/2002/religion/0207/14/a06-536645.htm

 

Hey sctmom, you may want to edit your last post,

"This is about me now my daughter" makes no sense. I believe you typed "now" instead of "not"?

 

[yaworski]

"This is the concept of "standing": You cannot just sue when you see something wrong, you have to be personally affected by it."

 

Then how the heck does the ACLU get involved when some small town in Alabama has a Christmas scene at town hall and no one, including the local Jews, has complained?

 

 

[evmori]

ACLU= Any Crummy Lawyers Union.

[sctmom]

Acc, thanks, you are right I meant that he said "it is about me, NOT my daughter". Guess I was so upset my fingers weren't seeing straight.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

"This is the concept of "standing": You cannot just sue when you see something wrong, you have to be personally affected by it."

 

Then how the heck does the ACLU get involved when some small town in Alabama has a Christmas scene at town hall and no one, including the local Jews, has complained?

 

If you'll check real court cases, you'll see that someone HAS complained (though they might be anonymous, since some people who want government promoting religion aren't above death threats).

 

[evmori]

ACLU = A Clan Like Union

 

The American Civil Liberties Union is neither civil or about liberties.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

 

God Bless America

[NJCubScouter]

Yeah, Ed, I think we get that you don't like the ACLU. They only say the nicest things about you, though. And they go to court to protect your right to say nasty things about them.(This message has been edited by NJCubScouter)

[NJCubScouter]

The ACLU is involved in many cases, but rarely are they actually a plaintiff. They usually finance representation of a plaintiff and/or file an "amicus curiae" ("friend of the court") brief. Usually the actual plaintiff is the child whose classroom schedule includes a "moment of silent meditation," a person who was thrown out of a mall for leafletting, a person who was denied a "permit" to speak on a street corner, and like that. On occasion, the ACLU does have standing and becomes a plaintiff in their own right. I know that this was true in the challenges to the Internet censorship statutes -- almost anyone with a Web site would have had standing in that case.

[evmori]

NJ,

No I don't like the ACLU. For a group that is supposed to defend the Constitution & Bill of Rights they sure have a funny way of going about it. I agree with the Skokie case but what's the deal with not allowing Christmas trees or creshes on government property but saying nothing about a menorah in the same location? They fight to have the Ten Commandments reomved from government building but say nothing about Congress beginning each session with a prayer. Seems to me they are a bit self serving.

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No I don't like the ACLU. For a group that is supposed to defend the Constitution & Bill of Rights they sure have a funny way of going about it. I agree with the Skokie case but what's the deal with not allowing Christmas trees or creshes on government property but saying nothing about a menorah in the same location?

 

The ACLU has consistently fought all such displays by the government; the supreme court hasn't been very consistent in its rulings, so you should blame the supreme court, not the ACLU.

 

They fight to have the Ten Commandments reomved from government building but say nothing about Congress beginning each session with a prayer.

 

It's been ruled illegal for government agencies to install the 10 commandments, yet governments keep doing it anyway, so the ACLU has to repeatedly bring suits. If government agencies didn't keep violating the constitution, the ACLU wouldn't have to keep suing them. The ACLU probably disagrees with Marsh v. Chambers, which found Nebraska legislative prayers constitutional, but since they would probably lose such a case with congress, they've decided to not throw money away. You might want to compare their prudent decision with all the various cities across the US that have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in public money trying to defend 10 commandments monuments erected to .... promote a Cecil B. DeMille movie.

[evmori]

SO what you are saying is the ACLU fights the fights they can win not the fights worth fighting?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10