Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bluenose · 08-10-2002, 09:46 AM

Another angle is the First Amendment special status. Standing is not as strict for 1st Am issues.

Any law challenged on its face on 1st Am grounds must pass "strict scrutiny" which is nearly impossible to pass.

Shake · 08-10-2002, 10:22 AM

Quote:

I predict a reversal on the grounds that "under God" is just ceremonial Deism that does not tend to establish a religion

My issue with this line of reasoning is that if that phrase is just "ceremonial" or as some others would claim, not really religious per se (due to rote repetition), then what's the harm in taking it out?

The other thing that gets me is why it always seems that something legit like this is brought up by someone whose background or reasoning is questionable. What I mean by this is, we find out later that Newdow's daughter considers herself Xian. There are similar examples in other areas, but what I'm getting at is why did he have to USE his daughter like that? I'm not getting this out very well ... sorry. Anyone understand what I'm getting at? Somebody like 4th Generation Atheist, for example, would be the right kind of person. Not someone just trying to get his name in the news.

Bokonon · 08-10-2002, 12:37 PM

I would love to, but I just graduated high school. Now, if you can figure out a way to challenge it despite the fact that in 10 days I'll be a college student, I'd be more than happy to.

uhcord · 08-10-2002, 01:45 PM

I'm going to be a senior this up and coming school year.
Hey, I even live in Virginia where, starting this school year, schools are required to post up "In God We Trust" signs.

recovering xtian · 08-11-2002, 05:12 AM

Here's the latest from Newdow.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/10/pledge.of.allegiance/index.html" target="_blank">"Under God" opponent claims personal affront</a>

Toto · 08-11-2002, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by recovering xtian:
Here's the latest from Newdow.

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/10/pledge.of.allegiance/index.html" target="_blank">"Under God" opponent claims personal affront</a>

There it is again. "Newdow, an acknowledged atheist . . ." Would they say Cardinal Mahoney, an acknowledged Catholic, President Bush, an admitted Methodist . . .?

<grumble under breath>

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Stephen Maturin · 08-12-2002, 03:40 AM

I suspect that the en banc court will vacate the panel's judgment and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the standing issue. In that way Ninth Circuit can avoid reaching the merits altogether.

4th Generation Atheist · 08-12-2002, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:


There it is again. "Newdow, an acknowledged atheist . . ." Would they say Cardinal Mahoney, an acknowledged Catholic, President Bush, an admitted Methodist . . .?

<grumble under breath>

[ August 11, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]

Um, who's doing the acknowledging?

I'll agree, that way of putting it sounds more like "an admitted alcoholic" than it does like "an >anything< committed to his rights as such..." <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Grumpy · 08-12-2002, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Toto:
There it is again. "Newdow, an acknowledged atheist . . ." [/QB]

It reads like "confessed Communist."

The usual label is "self-described atheist," just so you know it's not us throwing that loathsome epithet around.

RufusAtticus · 08-12-2002, 06:15 PM

Question: Does Newdow pay child support?

If he does, then the state feels that he is responsible for his daughter's well being. I don't see why a court would want to restrict the rights of a parent to sue on a child's behalf.

I find it so odd that fundies that cry for fathers' rights over the unborn are hoping that this father is denied his rights.

~~RvFvS~~

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

08-10-2002, 09:46 AM	#11
Bluenose Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: small cold water flat Posts: 471	Another angle is the First Amendment special status. Standing is not as strict for 1st Am issues. Any law challenged on its face on 1st Am grounds must pass "strict scrutiny" which is nearly impossible to pass.

08-10-2002, 12:37 PM	#13
Bokonon Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Left of the Mississippi Posts: 138	I would love to, but I just graduated high school. Now, if you can figure out a way to challenge it despite the fact that in 10 days I'll be a college student, I'd be more than happy to.

08-10-2002, 01:45 PM	#14
uhcord Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Somewhere Posts: 1,158	I'm going to be a senior this up and coming school year. Hey, I even live in Virginia where, starting this school year, schools are required to post up "In God We Trust" signs.

08-11-2002, 05:12 AM	#15
recovering xtian Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: texas Posts: 37	Here's the latest from Newdow. <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/08/10/pledge.of.allegiance/index.html" target="_blank">"Under God" opponent claims personal affront</a>

08-12-2002, 03:40 AM	#17
Stephen Maturin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Broomfield, Colorado, USA Posts: 1,295	I suspect that the en banc court will vacate the panel's judgment and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to conduct a full evidentiary hearing on the standing issue. In that way Ninth Circuit can avoid reaching the merits altogether.

08-12-2002, 06:15 PM	#20
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Question: Does Newdow pay child support? If he does, then the state feels that he is responsible for his daughter's well being. I don't see why a court would want to restrict the rights of a parent to sue on a child's behalf. I find it so odd that fundies that cry for fathers' rights over the unborn are hoping that this father is denied his rights. ~~RvFvS~~

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.