Comments on: Supremes Duck Flag Case

By: Alex Knapp

Alex Knapp — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Standing is, in fact, invoked frequently, and the interpretation of the California statutes in this matter are important. It's not a 'technicality.' Newdow didn't have the right to sue, so he doesn't get to sue. It's as simple as that.

By: Michael Kantor

Michael Kantor — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Newdow's standing is based on California state law, and normally the Supreme Court doesn't overrule the Circuit Courts on such issues. Today's decision is a big cop out and a waste of judicial resources.

I wrote more about it at my blog.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Alex: I agree. The notion that a non-custodial parent who has no right to control his daughter's education should be able to sue the school district to enforce the rights he doesn't have strikes me as daffy. The only surprise there was that it was the liberals (plus Kennedy) making that argument. Michael: I read your blog entry, but I don't understand your argument. What on earth does this case in particular, or the standing doctrine in general, have to do with Dred Scott? James: what does this case have to do with the flag?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Xlrq: It revolved around the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Flag, of the United States of America [etc.].

By: The Bonassus

The Bonassus — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

One Nation, Under God (at Least for Now) Forcing kids to participate in religious exercise is obnoxious. But I'm still glad SCOTUS didn't uphold the anti-"under God" ruling.

By: Signifying Nothing

Signifying Nothing — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

Pledge stays unchanged
Contrary to my expressed preference in the case, the Supreme Court decided to duck the case by pretending that Michael Newdow lacked standing to bring the case in the first place, a decision that essentially concedes (at least in the...

By: damnum absque injuria

damnum absque injuria — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

God Wins on a Technicality Elk Grove Unified School District v. Michael A. Newdow 542 U.S. ____ (2004) has been decided. The Court ruled unanimously against Michael "I will win because I'm right" Newdow, although they were not unanimous on the reason. Ironically, all four ...

By: Heretical Ideas

Heretical Ideas — Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000

IT'S NOT "JUST A TECHNICALITY" It appears the the common feeling around the blogosphere is that the Supreme Court dodged the "Under God" issue in the Pledge in their opinion. The implication, of course, being that they did so for political reasons. But look, standing... ---