# Pledge Case: Newdow is my hero **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 25, 2004, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359 "2004-03-25T15:56:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/221 "2004-06-14T17:57:37Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > “a majority noted that they favored the phrase,” Justices Rehnquist, O’Day, and Thomas do not a majority make. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/222 "2004-06-14T18:34:59Z")
Not surprised at the ruling. While certain judges may favor the phrase… it doesn’t mean that they can find it constitutional. These people are, forgive me, justices, and it is my ferverent belief that they will, no-matter their personal convictions, attempt to follow that which is the expression and intention of the law. They are, or I hope they are, a slightly different breed than the average congresscritter, who may be noble, who may be venial, but who must be partial and partisan. On the other hand, they don’t want to be the ones who say it’s unconstitutional. Mr. Newdow’s arguments were learned and accurate… and this chance to dismiss the case seemed likely months back. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/223 "2004-06-14T19:15:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Justices Rehnquist, O’Day, and Thomas do not a majority make. True. Although a radio report I had heard before I posted had (apparently in error) reported that four justices had concurred with Rehnquist. ---
**Author:** ![Milum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ea666f/32.png) [@Milum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Milum)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/224 "2004-06-14T19:19:13Z")
\*\* If an opponent to “under God” can wait a few years until a more favorable Court is in place, they will be more likely to secure a favorable ruling, rather than having the Court cement that nonsense in Law.\*\* Right on, **tomndebb** , spoken like true kerry/Kennedy groupies. Ninety percent of the American people read the same Constitution as you and find no fault with the inclusion of “under God” in the merely ceremional Pledge of Alleigance to the **United States of America**. Big deal. Yet you six percent atheists and fellow travelers pout and plot and hunger for the day that you can impose your six percent will upon ninty-four percent of your fellow Americans. Wow! You must be real real smart if you know what is best for the most of us, or we have slighted you somehow, and have caused your alienation from the greatest society of human beings that has ever assembled on God’s green Earth. If so we are sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/225 "2004-06-14T19:20:25Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > Or is this a repeat of the Florida 2000 fiasco, where the Supremes use a technicality to deliver a desired result they couldn’t justify legally? Questions of jurisdiction and standing are always supposed to be decided before the substantive merits of the case. Those are threshhold issues. It’s also a longstanding principle at the Supreme Court that cases which can be disposed of without reaching a constitutional issue will be so disposed. This is a good rule. The Supreme Court is aware that every time it makes a decision involving substantive constitutional law, it is for all practical purposes etching a rule in stone. Cognizant of their own insularity and inability to see the future, they understandably try to avoid picking up the chisel if they can. Anyway, [here is the opinion](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624). ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/226 "2004-06-14T19:45:09Z")
> [@This Year's Model](#): > > Justices Rehnquist, O’Day, and Thomas do not a majority make. Since there is no such person as Justice O’Day, it is hardly surprising that she is not part of a majority. My apologies to Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/227 "2004-06-14T20:03:56Z")
> [@](#): > > Ninety percent of the American people read the same Constitution as you and find no fault with the inclusion of “under God” in the merely ceremional Pledge of Alleigance to the United States of America. Big deal. I believe in God. I find a prayer that is so vague as to be “ceremonial” to be an insult to my belief. If a prayer has no value beyond ceremony, then it should not be recited. If a prayer has a specific meaning that imposes a belief on citizens who do not share that belief, then it is inappropriate. Given that the Pledge was modified to include “under God” simply to try to make a political statement regarding “godless Communism” (meaning that it was a one-time event that has no long-lasting meaning once “godless Communism” has been defeated), it serves no real purpose in the Pledge. (And are there any other non-totaliarian nations that insist that their citizens pledge their allegiance?) Now that the “enemy” is a radical off-shoot of Islam, should we not modify the Pledge once more to say “under our Christian God”? And if you support that statement, do you also support the notion of expelling all the non-Christian citizens? As to your “90%” silliness: An overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens accepted slavery (which _was_ in the Constitution). Did that make slavery right? Majorities of the U.S. citizenry supported the genocide against the original inhabitants of this continent. Did that make it right? The overwhelming majority of citizens were quite content to support EO. 9066, placing fellow citizens in concentration camps, based on no reason than racial fear. Did that make it right? I find an appeal to “the majority” to be about the weakest argument one can whine up to establish which laws are _good_. If you can only appeal to mob rule, you seem to have no substance to your argument. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/228 "2004-06-14T20:08:30Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The Supremes decided that Mr. Newdow did not have standing to sue. > > In other words, he wasn’t affected by the rule requiring that schools recite the Pledge. Since he was not the custodial parent, the Court decided that he had no right to speak for his daughter on this issue. It doesn’t appear to be so much that he “wasn’t affected,” but rather that (a) he didn’t have a legal right to press his claim as the legal representative of the minor child, and (b) the federal courts, for prudential reasons, do not get involved in resolving marital/familial issues. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Once the case went to the SCOTUS, she decided to participate and filed a brief that indicated that she was the custodial parent and that she opposed Mr. Newdow’s actions (information that was not presented to the 9th Court). Not quite. Ms. Banning challenged Newdow’s authority ih the 9th Circuit after that court had issued its initial opinion ruling against “under God.” The court denied her motion in a separate opinion, so it did have the same information available to the Supreme Court, albeit slightly late. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/229 "2004-06-14T20:17:51Z")
And the ignorance keeps on pouring out. > [@Milum](#): > > Ninety percent of the American people read the same Constitution as you and find no fault with the inclusion of “under God” in the merely ceremional Pledge of Alleigance to the United States of America. Big deal. Do you mean [this](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/fourthofjulypoll030703.html) ninety percent:? > [@](#): > > Yet high relevance does not necessarily prompt high familiarity. Far fewer, only 15 percent, say they know a great deal about the document itself. Or maybe you’re talking about the 1 in 6 Americans who believe the Constitution establishes the US as a Christian nation [here](http://www.constitutioncenter.org/CitizenAction/CivicResearchResults/NCCNationalPoll/HighlightsofthePoll.shtml). Or maybe the 1 in 5 that believe only lawyers can understand the Constitution (same site). > [@](#): > > Yet you six percent atheists and fellow travelers pout and plot and hunger for the day that you can impose your six percent will upon ninty-four percent of your fellow Americans. What about us Christians who don’t want to impose jackshit on any substantial minority, let alone allow the government to espouse or endorse any religious doctrine or beliefs? > [@](#): > > Wow! You must be real real smart if you know what is best for the most of us, or, we must be real real smart if we know what the rules are, and demand that they are actually followed. ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/230 "2004-06-14T20:45:13Z")
Oy, yet another tortured opinon from the supremes this year. A couple of my favorite bits. > [@](#): > > [Newdow] wishes to forestall his daughter’s exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion. Am I reading that wrong, or is this actually coming flat out and saying that the pledge constitutes “exposure to religious ideas”? It is a religious statement? I guess they could mean nothing more than the “ceremonial deism” we hear about. Still makes me wonder. There’s tons of good stuff in the concurring opinions, but they aren’t the ones that count(at least this is my understanding). I can’t help but think this decision is far more impacting on the status of children in joint or sole custody than on seperation of church and state. > [@](#): > > the domestic relations issues in this case was not apparent until Banning filed her motion to intervene or dismiss, declaring that the family court order gave her “sole legal custody” and authorized her to "exercise legal control " over her daughter. Newdow’s argument that he nevertheless retains an unrestricted right to inculcate in his daughter his beliefs fails because his rights cannot be viewed in isolation. This case also concerns Banning’s rights under the custody orders and, most important, their daughter’s interests upon finding herself at the center of a highly public debate. Newdow’s standing derives entirely from his relationship with his daughter, but he lacks the right to litigate as her next friend. Their interests are not parallel and, indeed, are potentially in conflict. Doesn’t this seem to give the big F-U to the non-custodial parents? Remember that the decisions of the SC can be seen as on par with the text of the constitution itself. Did we just get what is essentially a constitutional ammendment on the topic of the rights of non-custodial parents? They go on to mention that they leave this topic ultimately in the hands of the state courts, but the leader of the pack can’t really hand off responsibility so easily. > [@](#): > > The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion. A next friend surely could exercise such a right, but the family court’s order has deprived Newdow of that status. They just said that a non-custodial parent can’t sue to prevent the state from pushing religion but that a next-door neighbor could. Or am I reading this all wrong? I’ll admit I’m not particularly versed on the legal concepts of “next friend” or family law. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/231 "2004-06-14T21:13:25Z")
> [@Mtgman](#): > > Oy, yet another tortured opinon from the supremes this year. I’ve only skimmed it, but I tend to agree with you. This is a crock, and a poorly-reasoned crock at that. And one of the biggest crocks is this one: > [@](#): > > From _Newdow_: > Nothing that either Banning or the School Board has done, however, impairs Newdow’s right to instruct his daughter in his religious views. Instead, Newdow requests relief that is more ambitious than that sought in [two California cases]. He wishes to forestall his daughter’s exposure to religious ideas that her mother, who wields a form of veto power, endorses, and to use his parental status to challenge the influences to which his daughter may be exposed in school when he and Banning disagree. The California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has a right to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion. . . . The cases speak not at all to the problem of a parent seeking to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to restrain the acts of a third party. Great, so the father doesn’t have standing right to prevent “third parties” from exposing his daughter to religious doctrine. That disposes of the free exercise challenge . . . oh, wait, there _isn’t_ a free exercise challenge here. It’s not about Newdow’s authority to teach his child about religion. It’s about whether Newdow can stop the government from _establishing_ religion. Sheesh, this is the worst standing principle ever. Under this reasoning, nobody can ever challenge an establishment of religion unless the challenged practice compels the citizens’ participation. Because otherwise, you’re just trying to forestall other people’s exposure to religious ideas that other people endorse. What a crappy opinion. I wish they’d just decided the damn thing on the merits and thrown the fundies a functionally meaningless victory. Incidentally, “next friend” just means that you have the authority to pursue a case on behalf of a person who is incapable of doing so herself. It’s typically done for minors and incapacitated persons, e.g., _Billy Bob Jones, as next friend of Bobby William Jones, a minor v. GigantoCorp._ ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/232 "2004-06-14T21:16:51Z")
> [@Milum](#): > > we have slighted you somehow, and have caused your alienation from the greatest society of human beings that has ever assembled on God’s green Earth. I fail to see how objecting to the religious content of the Pledge of Alleigance could alienate anyone from the Doctor Who Appreciation Society. ---
**Author:** ![lekatt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lekatt/32/7269_2.png) [@lekatt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lekatt)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/233 "2004-06-14T21:28:11Z")
The reason this country came into being was religious freedom issues. The ability of each person to worship God as they see fit. This country was founded on a _belief_ in God, so there is talk of God on our coins, pledges, money, even in the supreme court, and in our military, to name just a few places where the term God may appear in relation to our government. The clause of separation of church and state meant that organized church congregations (Catholic, Church of England, etc.) would not participate in the decisions of government, as they did in Europe during the time this clause was written. It has worked well, never in the history of the United States has a church openly, actively participated in government decisions. The pledge, coin, seal, issues are not separation of church and state issues, never were and never will be. There are much larger issues that could have been challenged, like government pay for Chaplains. I personally believe they are “get attention” issues. What good is it being a “whatever” if no one knows. Or something like that, I can’t believe one has serious thoughts about a symbol bothering them to the point of a law suit, or a lawyer who will take it. We should be pointing out our similarities instead of our differences, these devisive issues really help no one. You don’t have to say the words in the pledge, read the coins, etc. There are things all of us run into everyday we don’t like or disagree with, so what. That’s what freedom is all about. God bless America. Love ---
**Author:** ![Mtgman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b5a626/32.png) [@Mtgman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mtgman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/234 "2004-06-14T21:53:42Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Great, so the father doesn’t have standing right to prevent “third parties” from exposing his daughter to religious doctrine. That disposes of the free exercise challenge . . . oh, wait, there **isn’t** a free exercise challenge here. It’s not about Newdow’s authority to teach his child about religion. It’s about whether Newdow can stop the government from **establishing** religion. That got to me too. It seems to me the nature of the third party exposing his daughter to religious ideas should be included in this analysis. If it were the next door neighbor Betty Bible-Thumper then the court could tell him he couldn’t have a restraining order against her because his ex-wife(who has sole legal custody) thinks Betty Bible-Thumper is a good companion for the child. The problem here is the state isn’t Betty Bible-Thumper. Betty has a right, free exercise, to thump her bible all day long and you’ve got to show some serious harm being done to make Betty stop. But the state, the actual third party in this case, has no such right. In fact they are expressly prohibited from bible-thumping. You can’t abstract out the nature of the state into some vague “third party” nonsense. If the state weren’t peddling a religious viewpoint then the situation would never have come up in the first place. Allowing the state to continue to provide “exposure to religious ideas” to minors explicitly puts the state in the role of endorsing religion. Enjoy, Steven ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/235 "2004-06-14T21:56:18Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > You don’t have to say the words in the pledge, read the coins, etc. There are things all of us run into everyday we don’t like or disagree with, so what. If the Pledge said “… Allah is great, …”, and if coins said “Allah is great”, would you still be of the opinion “You don’t have to say the words in the pledge, read the coins”? ---
**Author:** ![Unregistered\_Bull](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3da27b/32.png) [@Unregistered\_Bull](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Unregistered_Bull)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/236 "2004-06-14T22:00:39Z")
God got put on money in the 1860s. God got put in the Pledge in the middle of the 20th century in responce to the Godless Soviets. Well after the founding of this country. Teddy Roosevelt tried to get it off money and was soundly renounced for it. ---
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/237 "2004-06-14T22:07:38Z")
If the Supremes don’t want to decide a case, whether because it will just stir up too much political controversy, or because they are divided on a matter they want to be fairly unified on, or because they want to draft a bright line rule and this isn’t the case to do that in, or for what ever obscure and private reason they may have, they will find a way to avoid making a decision. They tend to avoid making symbolic decisions in the absence of some sort of a national consensus (yes, at the time of the decisions in Roe v Wade and Brown v School Board there was a consensus). The “case in controversy” rule and the standing requirement are escape hatches for the Court when clearly the two lower levels of federal courts thought there was standing and a legitimate legal dispute. In the end the seven old men and two old women just did not want to take a position on what they may well have thought was a silly and insignificant point of law with the potential to bring a lot of heat down on the Court no matter what they decided. Remember always that the Supremes are not final because they are right; they are right because they are final. That is true even if they change their mind later. It doesn’t make any difference that reasonable minds might conclude that there was legal standing, the Sup Ct said there wasn’t. The isn’t. The case is closed, for the timebeing. This is what is called an anti-climax. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/238 "2004-06-14T22:08:11Z")
> [@lekatt](#): > > This country was founded on a _belief_ in God, This has been discussed \*ad naseum \* on this board. The final consensus? You’re wrong. There were too many founding fathers who had absolutely no interest in religion at all to make your argument even close to legitimate. This country was founded on a belief in freedom. Allowing the government to focus on or highlight one particular religion undermines that freedom for everyone else. ---
**Author:** ![duffer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duffer/32/1026_2.png) [@duffer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/duffer)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/239 "2004-06-14T22:12:09Z")
I love the ruling for my own personal reasons. But here’s the best part. At [www.sportsinteraction.com](http://www.sportsinteraction.com) (my sport book) I just won $218 on the ruling. _snoopy dance_😉 ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359/240 "2004-06-14T22:36:35Z")
After a cursory looksee at the standing question, I gotta say…what the Hell? > [@](#): > > So strong is our deference to state law in this area that we have recognized a “domestic relations exception” that “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689, 703 (1992). A prudential limitation on standing based on the domestic relations exception? I gotta go with Rehnquist and Co. on this one. That doesn’t pass the smell test. The domestic relations exception is a matter of statutory construction of the diversity jurisdiction statute; it has _nothing_ to do with standing under federal question jurisdiction. The Court has in the past decided issues of family law when the underlying question involved a fundamental right. I think this new standing rule will create more problems than if they’d just decided the case on the merits. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pledge-case-newdow-is-my-hero/236359.md?page=13)