Comments on: God Gets Off on a Technicality

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:23:45 +0000

I’m sure somebody prays to that, too.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 23:06:53 +0000

Newdow isn’t on a jihad — it’s a crusade. Jeez, let’s get the terminology right.

Oops, did I say “jeez,” an obvious euphemism for Jesus? I did, didn’t I? Damn, I—

Well, now I can’t say “damn” either, can I, because it implies the existence of hell, which is a religious concept.

Shit.

By: Watcher of Weasels

Watcher of Weasels — Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:46:29 +0000

Submitted for Your Approval
First off…&nbsp any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.&nbsp Die spambots, die!&nbsp And now…&nbsp here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:A Tale…

By: Grrr

Grrr — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 22:27:27 +0000

“Atheist Jihad” vs “Christian Sharia”

Hmmmm, choices, choices.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:53:30 +0000

First, let’s dispose of the Brown analogy. While the NAACP may have had a broad political agenda that motivated its bringing the case, the named plaintiffs did not; they were real, live, custodial parents, with real children who stood to receive a substandard education if they lost. Standing was not an issue there, nor even close. And besides, their cause was a righteous one grounded in the very basis of what the 14th Amendment was intended to do (and probably would have done all along, had they not gutted it in Plessy v. Ferguson). Newdow’s, by contrast, is simply an ego trip, based on a “constitutional” doctrine that no Congressman or Senator ever voted to enact, no Legislature ever voted to ratify, and no court had even ruled for (though some, admittedly, came close as a result of earlier, more sucessful nuisance suits brought by others).

As to the standing doctrine generally, I’m having a hard time seeing how it could mean anything at all if it does not work to bar a suit by a non-custodial parent over the objection of the custodial parent who has every legal right to do everything the non-custodial parent accuses the school of doing. The case should have been tossed out on that basis early on. It wasn’t, so that’s where the Supremes came in.

As to the vote on cert, I’d be very surprised if it was not unanimous. Does anyone on any side of this issue really think it would be acceptable for one version of the Pledge to be recited in some states, and another version everywhere else?

By: Say Uncle

Say Uncle — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:20:57 +0000

One nation, under technicalities
Keeping with its long history of absolutely avoiding the fundamental issues at hand and relying on nitpicky crap no one gives a shit about to make the ultimate decision regarding the fate of things, the Supreme Court ruled that Michael Newdow could not…

By: Chris Lawrence

Chris Lawrence — Mon, 14 Jun 2004 17:16:02 +0000

I’d argue that applying the “standing doctrine” makes little sense in this particular case, particularly since we all know that Newdow will move to Elk Grove Unified, file with another plaintiff, gain more custody rights, or any of a million other things. The decision is pure BS and a delaying action of the highest order. The only good thing about it is that when Scalia recused himself, we were saved from the idiotic 5-4 precedental ruling in favor of the respondents that he, Thomas, O’Connor, and Rehnquist thought was going to be result when they voted for cert in the first place. (And dollars-to-donuts, when Stevens dies and his notes are revealed, that will be the exact lineup for cert in this case.)

I’d also argue that the exact same argument you tar Newdow with could be applied to the parents who filed in Brown. After all, they used their kids as “pawn[s] in a national debate.” What horrible, despicable parents.

Though I suppose it’s nice that Souter et al. rediscovered the standing doctrine, albeit for an afternoon. And it’s fun to see the unanimous Ninth Circuit Smackdown Manoeuver every once in a while, just so our faith in the Supremes and their Infinite Wisdom can be reaffirmed.