The Gamut

Yahoo! News - Supreme Court Preserves 'God' in Pledge

The Supreme Court preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance, ruling Monday that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath but sidestepping the broader question of separation of church and state.


At least for now, the decision — which came on Flag Day — leaves untouched the practice in which millions of schoolchildren around the country begin the day by reciting the pledge.


The court said atheist Michael Newdow could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

So the issue itself was less significant than why it was brought?

I have a daughter who is eleven. She lives with her mother, but spends a lot of time with me. Does this decision mean that if my daughter was being beaten at school that I could not sue to protect her because I am not the custodial parent? That's what it seems to mean. Newdow had no right to sue to protect his daughter from proselytizing teachers because he is not the custodial parent. Bullshit.

This was just another political decision by activist right-wing judges.

If this is the decision they were going to make, then the case should never have come before the court. The only reason that this case was heard was that the court knew that they could avoid making a decision based on this artificial technicality. And having heard a case on the pledge, they could stave off any such future cases indefinitely.

UPDATE: Ezra agrees with me completely!

Permalink

|