This is getting interesting now... The mother of the child who was supposedly "injured" by being required to say the pledge has come out to state that the views presented to the 9th Circuit Court by father Michael Newdow are not valid. Sandy Banning, the mother and sole-legal guardian, has stated that her daughter is raised in a Christian home, and practices regularly. She just recently started the third grade, and informed her mom about her exitement in being allowed to lead the class in reciting the pledge. So, my question is: Since Mr. Newdow has NO legal custody of the daughter, and the mother (who does) states that his views are NOT those of her nor her daughter's, would this be considered legal misrepresentation? If his case centered on her being "harmed" and no harm was obviously done, I would think that it would be likely that the decision would be reversed. Is misrepresentation the same (or similar) to perjury and thus punishible? Could Mr. Newdow now be in legal troubles of his own if he indeed used his daughter to advance his own agenda? Ms. Banning will be on Hannity and Colmes tonight... more... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,57683,00.html
Her beliefs are legally irrelevant. The fact that she has to hear the pledge recited with "under God" in it is the only legal issue. Whether it conflicts with her beliefs is not important as it does conflict with his (and parents do have a right to direct their kids' religious upbringing). The question to me would be whether the fact that he doesn't have custody of the daughter change the court's position on his standing to challenge the law. At least that's the way I see it.
Actually, you're wrong. The daughter's beliefs are the issue. The lawsuit was filed based on the daughter's freedom of religion. When you file a lawsuit there has to be an ACTUAL INJURY. You can't just sue because you want to shake things up. You have to have a legally cognizable injury. This man filed a petition to the court claiming to have such injury on behalf of his daughter. It seems to me that he knowingly filed a false petition. Sounds like he could be in for some trouble.
Actually, I think your wrong too...kinda... The father could have brought this up without using his daughter at all; he could have simply challenged the constitutionality of it. However, as Ms. Banning's counsel has already pointed out, that case would have been much harder to win, which is most likely why he chose to bring his daughter into it in the first place. I would like to hear from some of our legal-types around here regarding the misrepresentation issue, though...
Actually, he was right... the father did have to show actual injury, as stated in the ruling. In fact, this was addressed in the court's denial to include another school district the father was considering sending his daughter to. The court ruled that since his daughter's attendence in the other school district was speculative and not official, he has no right to include them in the lawsuit. If it is indeed found that the father does not have any legal guardianship over the daughter, then the case is invalid. If, however, any guardianship (even just weekend visitation) rests with the father, he does have a legal right to sue on his child's behalf in the interest of protecting his right to educate on religious matters. The truth of the matter is that the US Supreme Court is going to smack this ruling down with a vengence. Even the moderate justices are bound to find little merit in such a ruling (especially since this circuit is overturned far more than any other).
But the actual injury is the fact that she has to hear the pledge with the endorsement of Religion in it. It doesn't matter if she's a Christian or not to whether that's an actual injury. One doesn't have to be an atheist to be injured by the "Unconstitutional" act. Add in the fact that the father does have a right to direct his child's religious training while in his custody and the actual injury is even more obvious. He just didn't have standing to challenge a school that neither he nor his daughter yet had a connection to (as she hadn't been "injured" by hearing the pledge there yet, had she?) But the injury is still being required to hear the pledge with those words in it. Her actual beliefs are not the issue as she is forced to hear said pledge and said endorsement of religion and God each day. Therefore, she has actual injury whether or not she believes in God.
I think I injured my brain trying to figure out what you just said I think her actual beliefs ARE the issue, since his case seems to have hinged on her having to endure something she didn't want to say/hear, when this wasn't the case at all...
The endorsement of religion is an endorsement of religion whether she agrees with the message or not. The content of the message doesn't change because the listener agrees with it. She heard the pledge, that's the actual injury. Whether or not she agrees with the message is irrelevant.
Then why did he bring her into the argument? Why not simply challenge the constitutionality of the pledge? You don't have to get hurt, injured, or even directly affected by something to file that type of suit...
Probably have to ask him that. I know it may seem hard to believe, but he may well have simply thought he was doing what was best for his daughter in the best way he could figure out how. But I don't know the man, so I can't really speak for him, his reasons or his motives.
you don't??? so i, as a white man, could have filed a civil rights suit on behalf of the black guy (let's say he's a stranger) who wasn't allowed to sit next to me at Woolworth's? Or I could have filed the suit that ultimately led to Brown v. Bd. of Education decision? Really???
actually...i've been thinking about this today...even while deposing a defendant (is that malpractice?? ) ...i think you're right mr.paige. the harm is the government overstepping...you don't have to have actual personal harm. and because he's her father, he has standing to bring the case...she can't bring the case on her own because she doesn't have capacity yet. so, no..i couldn't bring the suit i mentioned in the example above...but that's only because i'm not his father. when the govt oversteps the Constitution (or when you allege that to be so) you don't need actual harm. i was wrong before, i think....i think...i'm still not 100% sure because i don't bring Constitutional claims...never have before...but I think I was wrong originally....but right now...huh??
Ahh, Max, I was on your side and you betrayed me! I don't have any legal training so I figured I'd let you make the argument for me, but you let me down. I was under the impression that there had to be an injury. I just sorta kinda vaguely remember a Supreme Court decision to not hear a case (that it wanted to hear) because the man bringing suit had no stake in it. Anyway, it sounds to me that the real crux is not the injury part but that the man doesn't have legal custody. If that's true, I don't see how he can get a trial at all. The child can't bring suit because she doesn't yet have capacity. Suit can be brought by her parents as representatives of her interests. But, if the man has no legal claim to the child, he can't be her representative. Even if he could have brought suit without the child, that isn't how the case was conducted. They would essentially have to throw this one out and start all over.
just because he doesn't have custody doesn't mean he loses all rights as a parent. in texas he would be called a joint managing conservator...which ultimately means he doesn't live with his daughter on a regular basis, but he does not in any way relinquish his rights as her parent. sorry for letting you down...just goes to show, the practice of law is just that...a practice!!! sometimes you need time to work through problems..unfortunately, clients think you should know the answer to every legal question off the top of your head.
