Which, by the way, is exactly what’s going on here. Newdow, from all accounts, is apparently manipulating his child (over whom he does not have custody) to bring up his political views in court. The mother evidently disagrees strongly with Newdow’s claims that the child has been harmed, and what the child herself thinks is anyone’s guess. The fact is that Newdow has no standing at all unless he has legal custody of this child and she has been actually negatively affected by the phrasing of the Pledge (might-have-beens don’t count). And in that case he is not really filing suit because he is her parent, but because he is authorized to sue on her behalf since she cannot file a case herself, being a minor.

The requirement of standing is part of the constitutional “case or contraversy” requirement. The court may not try a case which it does not have jurisdiction over…to do otherwise is to undermine the legal principles that form the basis for our whole legal system. What good is a decision from a court that undermines its own operating principles in order to take cases it isn’t allowed to take?

The media distorts the reality of the situation and encourages the ignorance of the public by scornfully referring to this as a “technicality,” as if the court has copped out by invoking some piddly little rule. It’s a typical media tactic to discredit a court’s jurisdictional or procedural decision. (Evidence being dropped because it was obtained in violation of the constitution is also one of those pesky technicalities, and I’m presuming that you’d agree that unconstitutional searches shouldn’t be ignored by courts.) It’s not a freaking technicality, it’s the constitution.

You are also encouraging this foolish view of the court’s decision, which runs contrary to the very roots of constitutional law. I don’t expect the mass media to know what they’re talking about- but you ought to know better.

So ironically, my brother, the appellate prosecutor for the state of Michigan, who is as flaming a bleeding heart as I am, argued the longer period, despite his own inclination. Given the current makeup of the court, who believe in prosecutors rights, he won.

(jerry, this is my autistic brother Jerry)

You’re right. But I WANT to encourage this view, because: 1) I think the Court handled this case abominably (hearing the arguments and then deep-sixing it on Flag Day for reasons that should’ve been obvious from the first. Yeesh, that’s lame and political). And 2) the current Court has been, in my view, laughably careful in making their rulings singular and non-binding, as though the Republicans’ constant fulmination against “activist judges” has frightened them from setting any significant premises.

Add to this the fact that Rehnquist, O’Connor, and Thomas used their opinions as an opportunity to say that they WOULD’VE upheld the Pledge as constitutional if the case hadn’t been “rained out,” and the whole thing just smells awful to me.

So yes- the Justices had a good reason to reject the case. They chose to hear the arguments a couple of months ago despite the rather obvious technicality. When that didn’t go too well for some of the more conservative justices (Newdow actually got applause from the gallery, which made Rehnquist angrier than most of the media has ever seen him), they waited ’til Flag Day and pulled this silly stunt. Maybe I’m missing the point, but this strikes me as both cowardice and bullying, and bizarrely passive aggressive.

That’s what I was on about.

though you may be right in legal terms concerning the supreme court ruling on the “under god” newdow case, i would still like to say that “under god” should be stricken from the pledge because it is in essence a pledge to a religious god in order to pledge to the united states of american. in that sense, i think the issue should be brought up again, but i don’t know enough about the supreme court (i probably should’ve paid more attention in high school civics) to know what the “proper” case would be.

and as for people who bring up that it doesn’t harm a child, i’m sure it doesn’t. but on principle and on historical grounds, i think that either children are taught the whole history of the pledge by the end of middle school (including all the nasty bits from the mccarthy era), or that “under god” be removed.

Still, the Flag Day thing is kind of suspicious. Now if they had released the opinion on Atheist Appreciation Day, maybe I wouldn’t be so skeptical. The fifth Monday of every February, I think it is, excluding Leap Years.

Fair enough.

I love your blog and I often agree with your points…it’s only because I consider you an intelligent and humorous guy that I got so up in arms. So it’s a sign of respect, sort of.

Tess -

I happen to agree that the words “under God” should be taken out of the pledge. Hell, they shouldn’t have been put in in the first place. But sadly, it isn’t possible to do that here because of procedural screw-ups. Unfortunate, but that’s the way it goes sometimes…my argument wasn’t with people who wish Newdow would have won, it’s with people who think that the constitutional requirement of jurisdiction shouldn’t stand in the way of him winning. Every very time I read a headline about a court case with the word “technicality” it makes me twitch.

Be well.

I’m not autistic. I’d explain, but it’s almost time for Judge Wopner. By the way, did you know your post has 522 characters?

But as long as we are on the pledge, how does parroting an oath that children can neither comprehend nor fulfill help them to be better citizens, or better students? Does it prevent another Columbine?

I never had to pledge allegiance until I was a substitute teacher and somehow I’ve managed to be an expectable American.