WhatEVER would we do without the Monty the Silver Tongued God? Thank you for crystallizing this argument Monty. Mods, you might as well close up this thread, Monty’s explained it all.
Pledge Guy had previously filed a lawsuit in his own city, but because he couldn’t prove a damage, the case was tossed. Just because something could be construed as wrong doesn’t mean any John Doe can challenge it in court. You have to prove some sort of harm.
Whether Pledge Guy loses standing here is sort of a sticky question, since he does have a daughter who (at the time) had to say the pledge. Obviously the court didn’t care that he was the noncustodial parent- all that mattered was that he could prove some sort of harm (or the potential of that harm?).
I don’t think should invalidate the ruling on its own. Regardless of MHO on this ruling, I still think Pledge Guy is a wingnut.
That statement seems to make the assumption that atheism is a religious belief, or that the father wants his daughter to be an atheist, even against her own wishes. Since I don’t personally believe in God, I consider Mass to be a waste of time, but hardly something to get riled up about. After all, it’s just people who share similar beliefs, getting together in a place designed for that purpose.
I’m an atheist. I celebrate Christmas and Easter about the same as everyone else, with the exception that I don’t say any prayers before digging into the ham and turkey. I will remain quietly respectful while those around me pray. I also have been inside churches, temples, and many other places of worship. I listen to the sermon (mass, etc.), sing the hymns, and stand in silence when they pray. If I had a child, I would happily take them to as many or few places of worship as they desired.
Having said all of that, I am firmly against our pledge of allegiance containing the words “under God”, courthouses with the 10 commandments on them, etc. I’d like to think I would be just as against those things if I were a practicing Christian.
How silly of me to get hung up on trifling constitutional considerations.
According to this article, the mother has full custody and the father is challenging that determination. But, as it stands now, she has full custody. A parent with full custody gets to make the decisions regarding the child’s upbringing. This site discusses custody arrangements in California:
If there was an agreement to share decisions then the mother wouldn’t, by definition, have sole custody.
I think there’s a question about whether the custodial relationship was ever raised before the District Court or the Court of Appeals. The issue of harm is an element of standing, but you have to be able to prove it directly harmed you. With an adult this is usually not a problem. But with a minor an adult must sue on their behalf and it has to be the proper adult. For instance, I couldn’t sue on her behalf because I don’t have the legally proper relationship with the girl to sue on her behalf. And I’m not so sure Dr. Newdow does either.
In a Fox News interview I watched June 27, he said his daughter was NOT upset by saying that, and, from this HYPER right wing “news” site (please wade through rhetoric and get the the last section, quotes from him)
Whether or not your opinion supports the suit or detests it, he did lie about his daughter, and used her in a way I find despicable.
This is an interesting synopsis. Newdow started a suit years ago in South Florida regarding the “In God We Trust” on coins, but felt this tack would have a better chance of success.
The OP is not so much about the Constitutional issue as a father lying.
Here is the opinion by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Page four states
I have heard injury needs to be demonstrated to file a suit such as this. (I am NOT a lawyer).
Yeah, I was just commenting on the discussion that ensued about whether his parental status was relevant to the suit. It’s an issue I had been mulling for the past couple of days.
Injury is one element of standing. But the broader issue is whether he has the parental right to bring the suit. Generally, only custodial parents have the right to bring suit on behalf of minors. Yet he asserted a parental right as part of his argument for standing, according to the Ninth Circuit’s decision:
But the cases cited in support of that do not deal with non-custodial parents trying to sue on behalf of their biological children. It looks like the Ninth Circuit was assuming Dr. Newdow had the right to sue on behalf of his daughter. If he lacks the right to sue, he lacks standing and standing is a constitutional requirement.
This is depressing. Such a great ruling, and the jackass that filed it might ruin it by being a jackass.
quoth RTFirefly:
I don’t think the state came anywhere close to ruling this. The PoA doesn’t say, “One Nation, which Really Likes Chocolate Sundaes,” but I don’t think it’s thereby saying that chocolate sundaes are evil or fictional. It also doesn’t say, “One Nation, capitalist through-and-through”; does that make it a communist pledge?
The absence of the mention of God would not make the pledge atheistic. If the court removes said mention, the court is not opining that atheism is preferable to monotheism.
Daniel
Interesting take, Zoff. Yesterday’s Sacramento Bee published an article stating the parents had joint custody. Also, the child’s mother was on MSNBC (IIRC) this morning mentioning how the parents share custody.
Hmmm…I don’t think, as someone mentioned as a possibility, that the ruling would no longer stand. Even were it invalidated in some way by the father having no standing in the issue and no interest in the injury, the decision would still have to be considered strongly persuasive by courts beneath the Ninth Circuit in jurisdiction. The new case brought forth would be ruled upon in the exact same way when it again came back to the circuit court of appeals, providing that someone else has the courage to bring a similiar suit. Still, it seems that whether or not the suit was proper, issue preclusion would have settled the matter. Of course, I got a 74 in Civil Procedure last semester, so maybe someone else knows this better. I’m staring at my copy of the FRCP and deciding not to crack it open, this is a law-free summer for me.
If Dr. Newdow doesn’t have standing then the ruling would not stand as a matter of law. And, if the father has no standing then the case was improper and the decision of the Ninth Circuit wouldn’t control because they made a decision on a suit that shouldn’t have been before them.
You could argue that a district court would be influenced by what they think the Court of Appeals would say, but I don’t know how safe a bet that is. You never know what panel will hear any given appeal so a district court judge can’t really predict whether the lower court ruling would meet with approval or disapproval.
It depends who the three judges are if the new case went up on appeal. With a different panel you could get a different result. It was a 2-1 decision. If you substitute for just one judge, it could go 2-1 the other way.
I’m not quite sure what you mean here. Issue preclusion bars a party from re-litigating a fact in a second suit that was distinctly put in issue and directly decided by a court of competent jurisdiction in an earlier suit. If the father didn’t have standing then the court didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the issue, and he didn’t have the issue decided in any earlier suit, so issue preclusion wouldn’t apply.
At this point it’s difficult to tell what’s going on. We have conflicting custody reports, a father who’s seemingly trying to make the argument that he had standing rather than the girl, and a mother raising money for her attorney to take yet undetermined actions. It’ll be interesting to watch this case progress.
Pldennison: “As far as him being Jewish, I know a lot of atheist, secular Jews who nevertheless celebrate the holidays for cultural reasons.”
Forgive my cluelessness, but is it possible to be an atheist Jew?
Maybe he means Atheists who have Jewish blood, instead of practicing Jews?
But Judaism is a, you know, religion, not a race.
The original form of the Pledge did not include the reference to god and it was written by a minister in 1892. The Pledge did not have a reference to god until 1954. Uniting people under a god was not the purpose of the Pledge. The purpose was to unite Americans in a Pledge to their country and thereby to each other. It was written not long after the end of the Civil War battles, but the effects of the war could still be felt in many places.
JohnT, search the archives for “atheist Jew.” All will be explained.
Yes and no…
According to Jewish law, the answer is no. Jewish law has a “once a Jew, always a Jew” policy. Thus, even if a person declares themselves an athiest, he is still treated in Jewish law as a Jew.
Of course, that hasn’t stopped Jews from declaring themselves athiests…
On a side note, the “Pledge Dad” is at it again. He’s now appealing a dismissal of his lawsuit in May regarding the use of a prayer at the Presidential inauguration. Source )
Zev Steinhardt
Good for him. We need whackos who have lots of money and time to throw at cases to stand up for our rights. Most of us wouldn’t be bothered, no matter how we feel on the issue. Lucky, pledge guy is stupid enough to try it.
Godspeed, Pledge Dad.