On 16 Jun 2004, at 1:26 am, Robert Seeberger wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 4:02 PM Subject: Re: Memorial Ruled Unconstitutional
Slate's most excellent Dahlia Lithwick had a great article yesterday explaining why in fact that US Supreme Court decision was not ducking the issue, but in fact made the correct decision:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102381/
************************************
Even if you believe the words "under God" violate the Constitution, as I do-or at least violate the court's line of cases in this area, as does Clarence Thomas-it's reasonable to say that Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow just wasn't the right case to test that proposition.
Too many other things were at stake. You can call them "technicalities." I like to call them "children."
Ask a divorced or unmarried parent with primary custody of a child what was at stake in this case, and you'll get an answer that differs profoundly from the headlines: The lawyer's trick here came from Michael Newdow, who wanted to override the religious decisions made by his daughter's mother. (The two never married.) Allocating the duties and obligations of custodial and noncustodial parents has always been the province of state courts. It's a hideous job, and no one should have to do it. But the simple fact is that judges decide on a primary parent, and the other parent can either try to change that arrangement or learn to live with it. Initially, Newdow went for door No. 3. He tried to use a backdoor to force the issue first and only tried to modify the custody agreement later.
***********************************************
Believe it or not, but I have to agree with John on this account. As a non-custodial parent, my rights, at least in regard to a situation where my Ex and I would differ, are significantly limited. I can think of a situation where I would like to exert some control, but any attempt to do so would be throwing money away and wasting my time and the time of many people. While I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed by this childs father, I'm very surprised the case has gotten this far. I don't believe he has the right to sue on his childs behalf in this particular instance.
If this was the only similar case in the pipeline then fair enough. But with such an egregious violation that seems surprising. Again, if it was the only such case, fair enough. But otherwise why pick this one which can be eliminated on a technicality?
Presumably any other similar action now has to start all over again...
-- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
-George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
