Silence on the Pledge Issue
I was eating lunch at Subway today and the news came over CNN that the Court had reversed the Ninth Circuit's decision in the Pledge of Allegiance case on procedural grounds (as Ms. Fedora previously noted.) One excited couple actually yelled out “yes!” and gave each other a “high-five” in celebration. Looking at these folks, I came to the conclusion that they were not lawyers, and likely had no idea what this decision really means.
I didn’t tell them that this is a huge blow for parental rights everywhere. I didn’t tell them that since the court ruled that Mr. Newdow lacked legal standing to sue solely because he didn’t have full-time custody of his child, that they were actually taking rights away from a whole lot of people out there. That’s right, if you and your kids' other parent are divorced, and if your spouse has custody of the kids, and your spouse wants to raise them as pagans, wiccans, athiests, satanists, whatever, you have no say in the matter. I didn’t tell them that by dismissing the case, they were "copping out," and that hundreds of eager constitutional law lawyers would soon file hordes of similar cases, hoping that their case is the one that gets picked to go to the court next time around. I didn’t even tell them that there would inevitably be a next time around. I guess I didn’t want to ruin their celebration. I guess some things are better left unsaid.
Posted by jkhat at June 14, 2004 01:55 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/135
| Trackback Entries |
Comments
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
great post and good point. what do you think is going on with the Court? did they just not want to deal with this in an election year? you gotta get off the subway kick. i'm sure you're a day or two away from being greeted by name at the door. you can't have that. |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
I hate when the Supreme Court ducks the issue on procedural grounds -- especially when the case will be back. All it does is delay the case few Court defenders say that it allows for a few more years of public dialog may lead to a clearer public decision, but that is not the purpose of the Court. It should decide the case on the merits, regardless what the public thinks. If the public doesn't like the decision, it can vote for candidates to appoint judges to its liking or change the law/constitution. |
| # March 7th, 2005 6:48 PM Converted_Comment | |
true, and agreed. but, at the same time, the court should take great pains to avoid judicial activism. since "tradition" factors in to many cases, i.e. those decided on strict scrutiny grounds, it is often better to hold off on deciding an issue to see what the states do. take gay marriage for instance. gay marriage is has traditionally not been allowed by the states. however, it has also not been traditionally *specifically* prohibited by the states. so the prohibition isn't one of positive law. in determining what is "traditional," right or wrong, judges will often look to trends that show a changing public attitude toward controversial issues. in these cases, it is often better to let clear and convincing evidence of a changing view develop, rather than assert that a change has or has not taken place before enough evidence exists. |