Justices reject atheist's case on a procedural NBC News and news services Updated: 10:35 a.m. ET June 14, 2004WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that an atheist father cannot sue over the reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance. The ruling was a procedural one and didn't specifically address whether the pledge is an unconstitutional blending of church and state because of its reference to God. The ruling said California atheist Michael Newdow couldn't sue to keep the pledge out of his daughter's school because he doesn't have legal authority to speak for her. Nedow is in a custody fight with the girl's mother. Newdow had urged the court to rule that a school district’s requirement that public school teachers lead grade-school students in the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional because the pledge includes the phrase “one nation under God.” Newdow’s lawsuit argues that teachers, who are public employees, are stating that God exists, which he claimed is a government endorsement of religion. NBC News' Pete Williams and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
Note to self: whenever I am on the supreme court and I have to make a hard decision and feel the need to cop out, use a standing argument.
Sam -- I personally don't care much about the outcome of this case. But having said that, I think the Court is absolutely right about standing in this issue. They're in the middle of a custody dispute that has not been resolved. Just because the underlying issue is newsworthy and important, doesn't mean you throw out the Family Code and rules for standing before this court, or any other.
I just wish that the majority of Americans knew that 1) The Plege of Allegiance is 112 years old and does not date back to the founding fathers and 2) and that the "under God" part was added in back in 1954. So even to this day, technically, the Plege of Allegiance has still existed longer without "under God" than it has with it.
I don't care that much about the outcome either. I'm just inherently skeptical about standing arguments as they are so inherently fluid and difficult to isolate and I think that the Supreme Court in particular likes to use them (plus the unintelligible "political question" doctrine) whenever it wants to avoid the heat. I mean imagine if Brown's father had been the nominal plaintiff in Brown v. Board.... not that this is as momentous, but you see where I'm coming from.
I definitely see your point, and it's a good one. I've read just enough about this case to be dangerous. And from what I've read, I don't think the father has standing in this case, either.
