At 09:02 PM 6/15/04 -0000, iaamoac wrote: >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.
And it's pretty clear that he is not a loving parent trying to do what's best for his child, but he sees her as no more than an inanimate posession he can use to get something he selfishly desires. I would certainly hate to hear that he had applied for and benn granted custody of her (and not because of his religious views, but because I don't think he loves her) . . . -- Ronn! ;-) (I am having e-mail problems this weekend.) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
