Stevens creates a new prudential limitation on standing: "it is improper for
the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue
is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the
lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of
'Law & Religion issues for Law
Academics'
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 2:41 PM
Subject: RE: The Merits in Newdow
Why? It is Virginia that has set
up an establishment clause defense to the federal act. The Act itself purports
to protect Free Exercise rights and Thomas does no
Lederman
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 1:36
PM
To: Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics; David Cruz;
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Merits in Newdow
Justice Thomas, by the way, would also hold that the
Fourteenth Amendment does not incorporate the Establishment Clause:
"Quite si
-
From:
Marty Lederman
To: David Cruz ; [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; Law
& Religion issues for Law Academics
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:56
AM
Subject: The Merits in Newdow
The collection of concurrences on the merits are
quite interesting. The Chief's opinion
The Stevens opinion explains why Neadow lacks standing to assert his daughter's claim
to be free of government sponsored religion. However, he doesn't seem to address
Neadow's personal right not have the state ineffect attack his religious message to
his daughter. Did I miss something here? (I
The collection of concurrences on the merits are
quite interesting. The Chief's opinion adopts the SG's argument --
darn-near-preposterous, IMHO (and that of Justice Thomas!) -- that the
Pledge is OK in schools because "under God" is "not endorsement of any
religion," but instead "a simple
