Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Stephen Maturin · 07-23-2003, 07:01 AM

As was true while the case was pending in the Ninth Circuit, the right wingers simply couldn't resist getting Sandra Banning to tell Michael-Newdow-is-a-terrible-father tales in the Supreme Court. From the Washington Post:

Quote:

A family feud has broken out in the Supreme Court between California parents who disagree about whether their daughter - and other children - should start each school day with the Pledge of Allegiance.

The case has gotten personal. In court filings, Sandra Banning claims Michael Newdow is a poor father, while Newdow says Banning is lying to the justices.

* * *

Newdow and Banning, who never married, are locked in a custody dispute that could be an important part of the case. At issue is whether Newdow, who does not have legal custody, had standing to sue on behalf of his daughter.

* * *

In his filings, Newdow describes himself as a loving, active parent.

Not so, according to Banning, who lives in Elk Grove, Calif. She says in the filing that he has been infrequently involved with the girl and that he once evicted her and the daughter from a home where they lived.

And who's acting as Ms. Banning's mouthpiece in the Supreme Court? That's right, it's tireless crusader for ethics in government and staunch opponent of oval office fellatio, Ken Starr:

Quote:

Former solicitor general and independent counsel Kenneth Starr, the lead lawyer, told justices in court papers that Banning "believes the pledge is an important, patriotic expression of American ideals that reflects the democratic beliefs of a diverse society."

The article notes that Starr is working for free. Looks as though he pocketed enough of the $45 million in public money he spent investigating the Clintons that he can afford to take on some pro bono work.

Jewel · 07-23-2003, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Former solicitor general and independent counsel Kenneth Starr, the lead lawyer, told justices in court papers that Banning "believes the pledge is an important, patriotic expression of American ideals that reflects the democratic beliefs of a diverse society."

Without the 'under God' part I would agree that the pledge "reflects the democratic beliefs of a diverse society". With it, however, it reflects the religious beliefs of a monotheistic society.

Toto · 07-23-2003, 10:12 AM

"[N]onconstitutional food fight between parents" indeed.

It sounds like psychological warfare on Ken Starr's part.

enfant terrible · 07-23-2003, 11:39 PM

This actually reinforces Newdow's standing - provides some factual evidence that he is personally injured by his daughter's indoctrination. Not that the Supremes will agree, but what the (under) Hell...

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-24-2003, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stephen Maturin
As was true while the case was pending in the Ninth Circuit, the right wingers simply couldn't resist getting Sandra Banning to tell Michael-Newdow-is-a-terrible-father tales in the Supreme Court. From the Washington Post:
...

This is exactly why Newdow is the wrong person for the case.

DC

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

07-23-2003, 10:12 AM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	"[N]onconstitutional food fight between parents" indeed. It sounds like psychological warfare on Ken Starr's part.

07-23-2003, 11:39 PM	#4
enfant terrible Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 276	This actually reinforces Newdow's standing - provides some factual evidence that he is personally injured by his daughter's indoctrination. Not that the Supremes will agree, but what the (under) Hell...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.