Freethought & Rationalism Archive

recovering xtian · 08-09-2002, 07:13 PM

Is there any hope that the court will stand it's ground? <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/09/pledge.appeal/index.html" target="_blank">Pledge Back in Court</a>

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: recovering xtian ]</p>

Philosoft · 08-09-2002, 07:29 PM

I predict a reversal on lack of standing. Anyone willing to give odds?

Toto · 08-09-2002, 07:37 PM

I predict a reversal on the grounds that "under God" is just ceremonial Deism that does not tend to establish a religion, following the dissent. I predict that the Supreme Court will not grant certiorari, and that will be it.

Philosoft · 08-09-2002, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
<strong>I predict a reversal on the grounds that "under God" is just ceremonial Deism that does not tend to establish a religion, following the dissent. I predict that the Supreme Court will not grant certiorari, and that will be it.</strong>

I was going to go with this, but I think it won't get any farther than standing, which will be broached first.

Autonemesis · 08-09-2002, 07:52 PM

I think they're playing with fire if they go after standing. That gives Newdow an opportunity to show that the state is effectively interfering in a dispute with his ex-wife over the religious training of his daughter. The state's religious endorsement serves to undermine his ability to influence his daughter's upbringing. Not only does that put to rest any question of standing, it also gets right to the core of the issue, which is that his daughter is being indoctrinated into religion by the state against his wishes.

Philosoft · 08-09-2002, 08:08 PM

I am under the impression that a fully non-custodial parent forfeits many parent-child rights, including religious upbringing. If Newdow has court-administered visitation, that may be incorrect. Anyone know?

Alonzo Fyfe · 08-09-2002, 08:21 PM

I believe that there is a good chance that the court will hold that Mr. Newdow lacks standing because of the mother's sole custody of the child.

But there are two arguments that can be raised against this.

(1) Mr. Newdow is still the girl's father. He may not have any grounds for complaint about the religious training selected by the child's mother. But Mr. Newdow is not suing the girl's mother. He is suing the state. Mr. Newdow still has a legitimate complaint to make against the state providing his daughter with religious training -- particularly religious training that denigrates the beliefs of her father.

(2) The girl is still Mr. Newdow's biological daughter. Even without custody, he has an interest in the child's welfare and the protection of her rights. Otherwise, no father would ever be permitted to bring suit concerning the welfare of any child over whom he does not have custody -- such as a suit to obtain custody -- on behalf of a child. If a wrong has been done to the daughter (such as indoctrinating the child into a state-sanctioned religion in violation of the constitution), Mr. Newdow still has far more standing before the court than a complete stranger would have.

So, there are still grounds for standing.

Given standing, the next issue before the court would be to deliver its opinion on the case. Here, I think it will uphold the previous decision.

The only argument raised in defense of the original law is that it is absurd to believe that an insignificant addition of a couple of words to the pledge will have the power of 'establishing a religion.' Yet, the magnitude of the fuss itself suggests that this is no minor matter.

The girl's mother herself has asked the court to withdraw the daughter's name from the case, and listed among her reasons the claim that she did not want her daughter stigmatized as 'the little atheist girl.' But, to the court, if there is a danger of this girl being stigmatized as 'the little atheist girl' for not saying the pledge, then there is a danger of all children being stigmatized who do not say the pledge. Which, again, argues that the pledge serves to establish a religion.

There simply is no sense to be made any more that the pledge with the text 'under God' is such a trivial and unimportant issue that it is no longer worthy of the court's concern.

In addition, the crux of the decision will hinge on whether the words 'under God' are merely descriptive, or if they are normative. If they are normative, then the 1st amendment is being violated. The only possible defense of the text is to say that 'under God' is merely descriptive.

But, if the court goes that route, they must also say that 'indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' is also merely descriptive, and that is almost laughable in its absurdity.

So, with no argument remaining that it is too insignificant to be worth the court's time, and a clear argument that can be made in defense of the original opinion, I expect that the lower court opinion will stand.

In the Supreme Court, the decision in favor of upholding the original court opinion might even be unanimous. We already have 6 judges out of 9 that will likely uphold the law. Scalia might as well. Scalia is an originalist, who believes that we should follow the intent of the founders. The founders explicitly voted down all attempts to put religous text in the Constitution, including the presidential oath. If the founders were against putting religious reference into the presidential oath, then it is reasonable to argue that they would have been against religious text in the pledge.

And if Scalia accepts this argument, he could bring Rhenquist and (almost certainly) Thomas with him -- making for a unanimous decision.

So, I expect the lower-court decision will be upheld. Television pundits will then have to try to explain this to the people. There will be calls for a constitutional amendment to restore the pledge. If that amendment passes, the USA surrenders its claim of being the land of the free, and we become instead the land of the Christian Taliban. So, this amendment is where the real battle will take place.

[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

joedad · 08-10-2002, 08:24 AM

Alonzo Fyfe,

Hope you're right.

Another thing that might, and I do mean might help get the unanimous decision you predict is if the Supremes realize they are possibly being perceived as nothing more than rubber stamps. So maybe there's enough ego on the bench to actually help.

joe

Skeptictank · 08-10-2002, 09:13 AM

Hmmm...I'm going with lack of standing too.

I'm wondering. if it does get thrown out for that reason, do we have any High School Infidels here willing to call their local ACLU and give it a go? You'll be hero of this board even if the rest of the nation hates you!

And as a bonus you can go on TV and mention this site! Weeeeee!

Bluenose · 08-10-2002, 09:37 AM

Even better than one Infidel teen who can speak for herself would be several: UU, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, Chinese of Confucian or Taoist family et cet.

Any religion which does not use the generic g word could join as they want their children to use the true name of the one and only true .....

08-09-2002, 07:13 PM	#1
recovering xtian Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: texas Posts: 37	Pledge Back in Court Is there any hope that the court will stand it's ground? <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/09/pledge.appeal/index.html" target="_blank">Pledge Back in Court</a> [ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: recovering xtian ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-09-2002, 07:29 PM	#2
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I predict a reversal on lack of standing. Anyone willing to give odds?

08-09-2002, 07:37 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I predict a reversal on the grounds that "under God" is just ceremonial Deism that does not tend to establish a religion, following the dissent. I predict that the Supreme Court will not grant certiorari, and that will be it.

08-09-2002, 07:52 PM	#5
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	I think they're playing with fire if they go after standing. That gives Newdow an opportunity to show that the state is effectively interfering in a dispute with his ex-wife over the religious training of his daughter. The state's religious endorsement serves to undermine his ability to influence his daughter's upbringing. Not only does that put to rest any question of standing, it also gets right to the core of the issue, which is that his daughter is being indoctrinated into religion by the state against his wishes.

08-09-2002, 08:08 PM	#6
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I am under the impression that a fully non-custodial parent forfeits many parent-child rights, including religious upbringing. If Newdow has court-administered visitation, that may be incorrect. Anyone know?

08-09-2002, 08:21 PM	#7
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	I believe that there is a good chance that the court will hold that Mr. Newdow lacks standing because of the mother's sole custody of the child. But there are two arguments that can be raised against this. (1) Mr. Newdow is still the girl's father. He may not have any grounds for complaint about the religious training selected by the child's mother. But Mr. Newdow is not suing the girl's mother. He is suing the state. Mr. Newdow still has a legitimate complaint to make against the state providing his daughter with religious training -- particularly religious training that denigrates the beliefs of her father. (2) The girl is still Mr. Newdow's biological daughter. Even without custody, he has an interest in the child's welfare and the protection of her rights. Otherwise, no father would ever be permitted to bring suit concerning the welfare of any child over whom he does not have custody -- such as a suit to obtain custody -- on behalf of a child. If a wrong has been done to the daughter (such as indoctrinating the child into a state-sanctioned religion in violation of the constitution), Mr. Newdow still has far more standing before the court than a complete stranger would have. So, there are still grounds for standing. Given standing, the next issue before the court would be to deliver its opinion on the case. Here, I think it will uphold the previous decision. The only argument raised in defense of the original law is that it is absurd to believe that an insignificant addition of a couple of words to the pledge will have the power of 'establishing a religion.' Yet, the magnitude of the fuss itself suggests that this is no minor matter. The girl's mother herself has asked the court to withdraw the daughter's name from the case, and listed among her reasons the claim that she did not want her daughter stigmatized as 'the little atheist girl.' But, to the court, if there is a danger of this girl being stigmatized as 'the little atheist girl' for not saying the pledge, then there is a danger of all children being stigmatized who do not say the pledge. Which, again, argues that the pledge serves to establish a religion. There simply is no sense to be made any more that the pledge with the text 'under God' is such a trivial and unimportant issue that it is no longer worthy of the court's concern. In addition, the crux of the decision will hinge on whether the words 'under God' are merely descriptive, or if they are normative. If they are normative, then the 1st amendment is being violated. The only possible defense of the text is to say that 'under God' is merely descriptive. But, if the court goes that route, they must also say that 'indivisible, with liberty and justice for all' is also merely descriptive, and that is almost laughable in its absurdity. So, with no argument remaining that it is too insignificant to be worth the court's time, and a clear argument that can be made in defense of the original opinion, I expect that the lower court opinion will stand. In the Supreme Court, the decision in favor of upholding the original court opinion might even be unanimous. We already have 6 judges out of 9 that will likely uphold the law. Scalia might as well. Scalia is an originalist, who believes that we should follow the intent of the founders. The founders explicitly voted down all attempts to put religous text in the Constitution, including the presidential oath. If the founders were against putting religious reference into the presidential oath, then it is reasonable to argue that they would have been against religious text in the pledge. And if Scalia accepts this argument, he could bring Rhenquist and (almost certainly) Thomas with him -- making for a unanimous decision. So, I expect the lower-court decision will be upheld. Television pundits will then have to try to explain this to the people. There will be calls for a constitutional amendment to restore the pledge. If that amendment passes, the USA surrenders its claim of being the land of the free, and we become instead the land of the Christian Taliban. So, this amendment is where the real battle will take place. [ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Alonzo Fyfe ]</p>

08-10-2002, 08:24 AM	#8
joedad Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: PA USA Posts: 5,039	Alonzo Fyfe, Hope you're right. Another thing that might, and I do mean might help get the unanimous decision you predict is if the Supremes realize they are possibly being perceived as nothing more than rubber stamps. So maybe there's enough ego on the bench to actually help. joe

08-10-2002, 09:13 AM	#9
Skeptictank Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: CONUS Posts: 901	Hmmm...I'm going with lack of standing too. I'm wondering. if it does get thrown out for that reason, do we have any High School Infidels here willing to call their local ACLU and give it a go? You'll be hero of this board even if the rest of the nation hates you! And as a bonus you can go on TV and mention this site! Weeeeee!

08-10-2002, 09:37 AM	#10
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	Even better than one Infidel teen who can speak for herself would be several: UU, Muslim, Hindu, Budhist, Chinese of Confucian or Taoist family et cet. Any religion which does not use the generic g word could join as they want their children to use the true name of the one and only true .....

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.