Gary, that article is retarded. The author's point is that the SC was correct because the daughter's primary caregiver is religious. I might be open to sympathy for this argument if the case was being argued before the municipal court of a town with a population of 600 people. But as it was an argument before the Supreme Court, Newdow's daughter isn't the issue anymore. The issue is the pledge itself. Is it constitutional or not? The issue is decidedly NOT "what does this child's primary caregiver want?" It should not rest in the personal preferences of Newdow's baby's mamma to decide whether our pledge of alliegence is constitutional. So what if her mama wanted her to do it? There are plenty of unconstitutional things we wouldn't allow just because her mama believed in them. Moreover, this decision, if made, would have impacted every child in america. In a decision of such portentious scale, does it make sense to say that what matters is neither the arguments nor the constitutional issues, but only the personal religion of the mom? That's ridiculous.
Michael, standing is always an important consideration in cases that come before the Supreme Court. We're just more disappointed in this case, because we were looking for a good fight.
No, as it turned out, it wasn't; that's the point of the decision. You don't, research indicates, get to determine what SCOTUS decisions are "about" while sitting at home in your arm-chair. That you have a personsal preference for what "should" be decided is not, in fact, relevant to how the law actually works.
But doubtless your law review articles discussing what is retarded refute that.
But doubtless your law review articles discussing what is retarded refute that.
Those would be some long articles.
Part of me is surprised that this issue had not been decided before wasting the SC's valuable time with this case. As I understand it, they're on quite a backlog, and they employ rather smart clerks for this sort of thing, i.e. checking if cases are appropriate to be brought forth before the court.
The SC knew the issue at stake here was larger than this one girl. If they had chosen to render a verdict, it would have stood. (If I'm wrong on this, I suppose you should feel free to walk all over me.) But it makes sense to me that ruling on an issue of constiutionality would not be jeopardized by the particular desires of a couple of citizens. But maybe I'm wrong. What do I know? I'm pursuing a philosophy degree, not a JD.
"But it makes sense to me that ruling on an issue of constiutionality would not be jeopardized by the particular desires of a couple of citizens. But maybe I'm wrong."
I'm afraid so. The legal doctrine is that, as a rule, courts should not decide beyond that which they are compelled to decide. You have it reversed. They're quite specifically enjoined from making such decisions.
It turns out that Newdow lacked standing. Therefore there is no basis for ruling upon the Pledge issue per se. End of story until someone else with standing brings the issue before the courts.
(Yes, it's a little more complicated than that if we look at the full wanderings of the Court in history; law always is; but that's the correct gist.)
I guess everyone didn't grow up reading legal decisions and the history of SCOTUS and civil liberties. I tend to forget that, but it never ceases to bother me.
To me, the foundation of this country are the ideas, and the ideas are founded in Marbury v. Madison, the history of the SCOTUS and the ACLU.
The idea that everyone isn't familiar with such is known to me, but not calming.
Rather, it alarms me greatly. It's the basis of our country; how is it you don't know this stuff? That's what leaps to my mind.
It's un-American. How not to know the decisions of freedom?
People who don't spend several hours a month reading Supreme Court decisions, and history and reasoning of them: how do you value freedom, instead?
dude, that is hella weak. What a way to dodge doing what they should do but don't want to.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 12:20 PM
Tell me about it. Tonight I'm gonna get drunk, stand on Stevens' lawn, and yell incoherently until he comes out and fights like a man.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 1:45 PM
Wear a Viking helmet. That's always worth five extra points.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 2:17 PM
Viking helmets are AWESOME. So are the big fur things that Vikings always wear in movies. Damn, it's gonna be one hot night in Washington.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 2:24 PM
I'll be watching COPS. Hope to see you!
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 3:29 PM
Dahlia Lithwick points out why your commenters' comments are not as fully considered as they might be.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 7:16 PM
Gary, that article is retarded. The author's point is that the SC was correct because the daughter's primary caregiver is religious. I might be open to sympathy for this argument if the case was being argued before the municipal court of a town with a population of 600 people. But as it was an argument before the Supreme Court, Newdow's daughter isn't the issue anymore. The issue is the pledge itself. Is it constitutional or not? The issue is decidedly NOT "what does this child's primary caregiver want?" It should not rest in the personal preferences of Newdow's baby's mamma to decide whether our pledge of alliegence is constitutional. So what if her mama wanted her to do it? There are plenty of unconstitutional things we wouldn't allow just because her mama believed in them. Moreover, this decision, if made, would have impacted every child in america. In a decision of such portentious scale, does it make sense to say that what matters is neither the arguments nor the constitutional issues, but only the personal religion of the mom? That's ridiculous.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 7:34 PM
You sayin' I didn't give the Viking helmet due consideration? Because I've thought about it.
A lot.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 7:41 PM
Michael, standing is always an important consideration in cases that come before the Supreme Court. We're just more disappointed in this case, because we were looking for a good fight.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 8:53 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 9:22 PM
"The issue is the pledge itself."
No, as it turned out, it wasn't; that's the point of the decision. You don't, research indicates, get to determine what SCOTUS decisions are "about" while sitting at home in your arm-chair. That you have a personsal preference for what "should" be decided is not, in fact, relevant to how the law actually works.
But doubtless your law review articles discussing what is retarded refute that.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-14-04 11:07 PM
But doubtless your law review articles discussing what is retarded refute that.
Those would be some long articles.
Part of me is surprised that this issue had not been decided before wasting the SC's valuable time with this case. As I understand it, they're on quite a backlog, and they employ rather smart clerks for this sort of thing, i.e. checking if cases are appropriate to be brought forth before the court.
The SC knew the issue at stake here was larger than this one girl. If they had chosen to render a verdict, it would have stood. (If I'm wrong on this, I suppose you should feel free to walk all over me.) But it makes sense to me that ruling on an issue of constiutionality would not be jeopardized by the particular desires of a couple of citizens. But maybe I'm wrong. What do I know? I'm pursuing a philosophy degree, not a JD.
Right now, it still looks like a dodge to me.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 06-15-04 4:02 AM
"But it makes sense to me that ruling on an issue of constiutionality would not be jeopardized by the particular desires of a couple of citizens. But maybe I'm wrong."
I'm afraid so. The legal doctrine is that, as a rule, courts should not decide beyond that which they are compelled to decide. You have it reversed. They're quite specifically enjoined from making such decisions.
It turns out that Newdow lacked standing. Therefore there is no basis for ruling upon the Pledge issue per se. End of story until someone else with standing brings the issue before the courts.
(Yes, it's a little more complicated than that if we look at the full wanderings of the Court in history; law always is; but that's the correct gist.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-15-04 12:35 PM
Excellent explanation here, by the way:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_06_14.shtml#1087333007
I guess everyone didn't grow up reading legal decisions and the history of SCOTUS and civil liberties. I tend to forget that, but it never ceases to bother me.
To me, the foundation of this country are the ideas, and the ideas are founded in Marbury v. Madison, the history of the SCOTUS and the ACLU.
The idea that everyone isn't familiar with such is known to me, but not calming.
Rather, it alarms me greatly. It's the basis of our country; how is it you don't know this stuff? That's what leaps to my mind.
It's un-American. How not to know the decisions of freedom?
People who don't spend several hours a month reading Supreme Court decisions, and history and reasoning of them: how do you value freedom, instead?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-16-04 10:06 PM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 06-16-04 10:20 PM
Okay, that was cranky.
Sorry.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 06-16-04 10:41 PM