| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Carol Lee Smith" |
| Date: |
20 Oct 2003 01:19:59 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
It still astonishes me that we have arrived at a point in our nation's
history that the mere mention of God's name - something our Founders
recurrently did as they established this religiously influenced nation
- is now seen as inappropriate and downright wrong.
It is not the "mere mention of (a) God's name which is the problem. It is
governmental endorsement of monotheism--not just once, mind you, but
daily.
No, there is no endorsement of anything, there is only the mention of God.
There MIGHT be the inference of endorsement, but there is really only a
mention. There were several judges before the 9th that found the Pledge was
fine the way it is.
Governmental endorsement of the concept that this nation is "under god" is
contrary to the religion of some of the citizens.
It is disrespectful to those people and their religion for the government
to have inserted "under god" into a national oath.
There were two judges BEFORE the ninth? What is that supposed to mean?
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a Justice Department appeal,
agreeing to take on the case, giving hope to the majority of Americans
that this simple, yet powerful, phrase will remain in the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Where it was not put by the minister who originally wrote the pledge.
Being respectful of history would be returning it to its original form.
Perhaps, but where is the distortion?
It is evident.
Main Entry: distortion
Pronunciation: di-'stor-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1581
1 : the act of distorting
2 : the quality or state of being distorted : a product of distorting
Entry Word: distort
Function: verb
Text: 1
Synonyms MISREPRESENT, belie, color, falsify, garble, miscolor, misstate,
pervert, twist, warp
Related Word misconstrue, misinterpret; alter, change
2
Synonyms DEFORM, contort, misshape, torture, warp, wind
Related Word bend, curve, twist
.
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 02:54:31 PM |
|
|
There were two judges BEFORE the ninth? What is that supposed to mean?
Isn't it true the case was heard by the State Supreme Court, and the US
District Court, and he lost both times? Newdow then appealed to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals where he finally won because an extremely liberal
fringe group of justices from a relatively liberal court bench was selected
to hear the arguments. By nearly every account of the court watchers that
have looked at this case, it would not have won in any other circuit court.
Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a Justice Department
appeal,
agreeing to take on the case, giving hope to the majority of
Americans
that this simple, yet powerful, phrase will remain in the Pledge
of
Allegiance.
Where it was not put by the minister who originally wrote the pledge.
Being respectful of history would be returning it to its original
form.
Perhaps, but where is the distortion?
It is evident.
No, it is not evident. Where is the distortion that Falwell is making?
Main Entry: distortion
Pronunciation: di-'stor-sh&n
Function: noun
Date: 1581
1 : the act of distorting
2 : the quality or state of being distorted : a product of distorting
Entry Word: distort
Function: verb
Text: 1
Synonyms MISREPRESENT, belie, color, falsify, garble, miscolor, misstate,
pervert, twist, warp
Related Word misconstrue, misinterpret; alter, change
2
Synonyms DEFORM, contort, misshape, torture, warp, wind
Related Word bend, curve, twist
I know what distortion means. My question is specifically, where is the
distortion on the part of Falwell? He seems to have laid out the issue very
well. You might not agree with his position on the outcome, and the obvious
outcome he wants to follow the facts as he has laid those facts out, but the
facts he has laid out are not distorted.
Newdow has brought a complaint, the complaint has been propped up with
evidence. A decision has been rendered, and the high court has agreed to
rear the case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 03:11:54 PM |
|
|
Isn't it true the case was heard by the State Supreme Court, and the US
District Court, and he lost both times? Newdow then appealed to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals where he finally won because an extremely liberal
fringe group of justices from a relatively liberal court bench was selected
to hear the arguments.
Liberal? Tee hee. You do know who appointed Alfred Goodwin to the 9th Circuit,
don't you Comrade? It was that extremist liberal Richard Milhous Nixon. You do
know which party has nominated Goodwin to every judicial position he has ever
held, don't you Comrade? It was the extremist liberal Republican Party.
Calling a libertarian small-government Goldwater-conservative like Goodwin
"liberal"...oh that's rich!!!
Now, back into the bozo bin with you, Comrade Jeff.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 04:44:23 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
There were two judges BEFORE the ninth? What is that supposed to mean?
Isn't it true the case was heard by the State Supreme Court, and the US
District Court,
What does that have to do with "two judges [coming] before the 9th" ?
and he lost both times?
Who lost?
What does that have to do with "two judges [coming] before the 9th" ?
Do judges come "before" the court?
Newdow then appealed to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals where he finally won because an extremely liberal
fringe group of justices from a relatively liberal court bench was selected
to hear the arguments. By nearly every account of the court watchers that
have looked at this case, it would not have won in any other circuit court.
Have you read the decision?
Are you familiar with the merits of the case?
The justices ruled on the merits of the case.
Not ifs, ands or buts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 08:31:57 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031020164128.22601I-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
There were two judges BEFORE the ninth? What is that supposed to
mean?
Isn't it true the case was heard by the State Supreme Court, and the US
District Court,
What does that have to do with "two judges [coming] before the 9th" ?
and he lost both times?
Who lost?
What does that have to do with "two judges [coming] before the 9th" ?
Do judges come "before" the court?
Newdow then appealed to the 9th
Circuit Court of Appeals where he finally won because an extremely
liberal
fringe group of justices from a relatively liberal court bench was
selected
to hear the arguments. By nearly every account of the court watchers
that
have looked at this case, it would not have won in any other circuit
court.
Have you read the decision?
Are you familiar with the merits of the case?
The justices ruled on the merits of the case.
If they had done that, they would have ruled against Newdow.
One he is not the legal custodian, Two his daughter is not being harmed as
he alleges, three he has no standing to bring the suit to court. He never
informed his daughter or her mother who is the sole legal guardian that he
was filing a suit on behalf of his daughter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 04:14:20 PM |
|
|
Are you familiar with the merits of the case?
The justices ruled on the merits of the case.
If they had done that, they would have ruled against Newdow.
One he is not the legal custodian, Two his daughter is not being harmed as
he alleges, three he has no standing to bring the suit to court. He never
informed his daughter or her mother who is the sole legal guardian that he
was filing a suit on behalf of his daughter.
It appears that Newdow does have sufficient standing. I do not agree that he
has standing, but it has been found that he does. His standing was rejected
in two lower courts, but upheld by the 9th.
I think the court has erred significantly on the standing issue precisely
because of the custody issues that you describe.
As a casual observer, it appears to me that the court has set the stage for
a non-custodial parent to make custodial/guardianship decisions that oppose
the parental rights of the custodial parent. I think this case sets a very
bad precident because we essentially have two ex-spouses, mates, whatever,
that have a child. The non-custodial parent is making child rearing
decisions that should be the exclusive purview of the custodial parent.
If Newdow wins in the USSC, then he can take exception to his daughter
attending church services with her mother. He can challenge the
participation of the church in a wedding ceremony, EVEN if his daughter
wants the church to participate. A large part of the reason he is not
together with the mother of the child is precisely due to his religious
beliefs, or the lack of them, and hers do not match. They, as parents, are
conflicted on the right way to raise the child, and he has found a way to
drag the mother through the Supreme Court of the United States over thier
disagreements. He is getting even with her, and we are paying the cost.
To carry this a step further, an uncle (or other family member) could make
custodial decisions for a neice or nephew because they don't like the
directin the parents are choosing for the child. The problem isn't that
these interested third parties are bringing issues to the "proper
authorities", because clearly there is a time and place where family members
NEED to alert somebody that a child is not being treated right.
The issue is that a simple child rearing issue that is a day-to-day thing
can now be brought to the court system for no other reason than somebody
doesn't approve of the way a child is being raised. There might be nothing
wrong with the way the child is being raised, as seems to be the case in
Newdow, but there is merely a difference in child rearing philosophies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 04:49:36 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
Are you familiar with the merits of the case?
The justices ruled on the merits of the case.
If they had done that, they would have ruled against Newdow.
One he is not the legal custodian, Two his daughter is not being harmed as
he alleges, three he has no standing to bring the suit to court. He never
informed his daughter or her mother who is the sole legal guardian that he
was filing a suit on behalf of his daughter.
It appears that Newdow does have sufficient standing. I do not agree that he
has standing, but it has been found that he does. His standing was rejected
in two lower courts, but upheld by the 9th.
Wrong; from the summary in the 9th circuit court decision:
"The magistrate judge reported findings and a recommendation
that the district court hold that the daily Pledge ceremony
in the schools did not violate the Establishment Clause.
District Judge Edward J. Schwartz approved the recommendation
and entered a judgment of dismissal. This appeal followed."
The lower courts did NOT rule against Newdow on the basis of
standing; if they found Newdow didn't have standing, the summary
would state THAT, and the lower courts would have issued no
other ruling other than the lack of standing.
I think the court has erred significantly on the standing issue precisely
because of the custody issues that you describe.
As a casual observer, it appears to me that the court has set the stage for
a non-custodial parent to make custodial/guardianship decisions that oppose
the parental rights of the custodial parent. I think this case sets a very
bad precident because we essentially have two ex-spouses, mates, whatever,
that have a child. The non-custodial parent is making child rearing
decisions that should be the exclusive purview of the custodial parent.
Non-custodial parents have long been ruled to still have a say
in the religious upbringing of their own children. You missed that
boat a long time ago. See Khalsa v. Khalsa, Mesa v. Mesa, Munoz v.
Munoz, or Robertson v. Robertson.
Here's part of Mesa v. Mesa:
http://jehovah.to/legal/custody/mesa.htm
....
[1] The issue of whether a court can restrain a noncustodial parent from
exposing a child to his or her religious beliefs and practices is one of
first impression in Florida. The courts confronted with this issue have
consistently overturned such a restriction, except where there is "a
clear, affirmative showing that these religious activities will be
harmful to the child." In re Marriage of Murga, 103 Cal.App.3d 498, 505,
163 Cal.Rptr. 79, 82 (1980), and authorities cited therein. Allowing a
court to choose one parent's religious beliefs and practices over
another's, in the absence of a clear showing of harm to the child, would
violate the first amendment. See Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash.2d 810, 489
P.2d 1133 (1971); Brown v. Szakal, 212 N.J.Super. 136, 514 A.2d 81
(1986).
....
Also see decisions that have found that courts can't favor
parents who provide religious instruction over parents who
don't, such as In The Matter of Guardianship of Faust, 123
So.2d 218, 220 (Miss. 1960) or Osteraas v. Osteraas
If Newdow wins in the USSC, then he can take exception to his daughter
attending church services with her mother.
Sure; so what?
He can challenge the
participation of the church in a wedding ceremony, EVEN if his daughter
wants the church to participate.
If his daughter is getting married, she's presumably an adult.
A large part of the reason he is not
together with the mother of the child is precisely due to his religious
beliefs, or the lack of them, and hers do not match.
Yep. And guess what? The courts don't allow the custodial
parent to lock out the noncustodial parent.
They, as parents, are
conflicted on the right way to raise the child, and he has found a way to
drag the mother through the Supreme Court of the United States over thier
disagreements.
Because the public school shouldn't be taking sides; the
parents disagree about religion, and the public school shouldn't
take the position of one parent over the other. But by drilling
"god" into the daughter every morning, the state gives young
children the impression that they "ought" to believe in god.
If public schools stayed OUT of religion by not having a god-soaked
loyalty oath every morning, there would be no case for you to *****
about.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:06:41 PM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" <westley@visi.com> wrote in message
news:3f95a9f0$0$75894$a1866201@newsreader.visi.com...
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> writes:
Are you familiar with the merits of the case?
The justices ruled on the merits of the case.
If they had done that, they would have ruled against Newdow.
One he is not the legal custodian, Two his daughter is not being harmed
as
he alleges, three he has no standing to bring the suit to court. He
never
informed his daughter or her mother who is the sole legal guardian that
he
was filing a suit on behalf of his daughter.
It appears that Newdow does have sufficient standing. I do not agree that
he
has standing, but it has been found that he does. His standing was
rejected
in two lower courts, but upheld by the 9th.
Wrong; from the summary in the 9th circuit court decision:
"The magistrate judge reported findings and a recommendation
that the district court hold that the daily Pledge ceremony
in the schools did not violate the Establishment Clause.
District Judge Edward J. Schwartz approved the recommendation
and entered a judgment of dismissal. This appeal followed."
The lower courts did NOT rule against Newdow on the basis of
standing; if they found Newdow didn't have standing, the summary
would state THAT, and the lower courts would have issued no
other ruling other than the lack of standing.
And that is where the 9th is in error.
They did not address the alleged harm that Newdow claimed, as his daughter
is not being harmed by the recital of the pledge.
I think the court has erred significantly on the standing issue precisely
because of the custody issues that you describe.
As a casual observer, it appears to me that the court has set the stage
for
a non-custodial parent to make custodial/guardianship decisions that
oppose
the parental rights of the custodial parent. I think this case sets a
very
bad precident because we essentially have two ex-spouses, mates,
whatever,
that have a child. The non-custodial parent is making child rearing
decisions that should be the exclusive purview of the custodial parent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:47:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, dpr wrote:
And that is where the 9th is in error.
They did not address the alleged harm that Newdow claimed, as his daughter
is not being harmed by the recital of the pledge.
http://snurl.com/2r41
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Shuggy" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 12:33:34 AM |
|
|
Because the public school shouldn't be taking sides; the
parents disagree about religion, and the public school shouldn't
take the position of one parent over the other. But by drilling
"god" into the daughter every morning, the state gives young
children the impression that they "ought" to believe in god.
If public schools stayed OUT of religion by not having a god-soaked
loyalty oath every morning, there would be no case for you to *****
about.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Thank you for this lucid post. I think you have stated the issue as
succinctly as is humanly possible.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 04:59:47 PM |
|
|
If Newdow wins in the USSC, then he can take exception to his daughter
attending church services with her mother.
Wrong, Comrade. You really have a difficult time telling the difference between
government mandates and private practice, don't you?
A public school is an organ of the government and is limited in its power by
the Constitution. A private church is not, no matter how much Taliban-wannabees
like you want to combine them.
Now, put your strawmen away, Comrade and get back in my bozo bin where you
belong. You're a disgrace to the principles of conservatism.
"The religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the
decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public
policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their
views the only alternatives... We have succeeded for 205 years in keeping the
affairs of state separate from the uncompromising idealism of religious groups
and we mustn't stop now,. To retreat from that separation would violate the
principles of conservatism and the values upon which the framers built this
democratic republic." - Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), Senate Speech, 15
September 1981
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 04:25:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
The issue is that a simple child rearing issue that is a day-to-day thing
can now be brought to the court system for no other reason than somebody
doesn't approve of the way a child is being raised. There might be nothing
wrong with the way the child is being raised, as seems to be the case in
Newdow, but there is merely a difference in child rearing philosophies.
Do you think that the 9th Circuit Court was salivating in phatasmagorical
delirium to take this case?
Do you think if there had been an easy way out of it such as: "Naughty,
naughty; take your parental squabbles to family court" they wouldn't have
done so?
Too bad you weren't there to give your expert advice!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:02:14 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031021162252.26242V-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
The issue is that a simple child rearing issue that is a day-to-day
thing
can now be brought to the court system for no other reason than somebody
doesn't approve of the way a child is being raised. There might be
nothing
wrong with the way the child is being raised, as seems to be the case in
Newdow, but there is merely a difference in child rearing philosophies.
Do you think that the 9th Circuit Court was salivating in phatasmagorical
delirium to take this case?
I am not sure I even know what that means. In fact, I am pretty sure I do
not know what it means.
Do you think if there had been an easy way out of it such as: "Naughty,
naughty; take your parental squabbles to family court" they wouldn't have
done so?
Too bad you weren't there to give your expert advice!!
I can accept the notioin that I have oversimplified the issues here. I think
the issues are essentially as I have said, but Newdow would never admit that
this was his issue. I readily admit that one must read between the lines to
arrive at this conclusion, but it is a reasonable conclusion to have arrived
at given the argumentative nature of the public statements of the child's
mother in regards to Newdow's involvement in rearing the child. .
I think the court didn't need to say, "liar liar, pants on fire." or any of
those things. All they needed to do was determine who is responsible for
raising the child, then see if that person had an issue with the action of
the school district relative to the Pledge. If the custodial parent had no
issue, then case closed and move on to the next one.
I think that Newdows non-custodial relationship with the child is a critical
factor in the case moving through the court system. If he had custodial
responsibility of the child, and couldn't get the school to stop with the
Pledge, then he should pursue his arguments as he has done. If Newdow was
the custodian, and the mother, or the mother's parents, took issue with the
rearing of the child, then they go into family court and engage in the
custody battle. If they win, they decide what the child is exposed to, if
they lose, they shut the hell up and let the custodian do his job.
By giving Newdow standing to bring this issue the court system, the court
has opened the door to a great many family members that can claim the child
is not being raised properly, and they ought to be able to intervene while
asvoiding custody responsibility at the same time.
Basically, a non-custodial family member can interfere with the way I raise
my child, and avoid the day to day repsonsibility of having to deal with my
child. I am not sure I would want that, are you able to accept it?
If I was divorced from my wife, and did not have custody of my kids, I would
fight at every turn to get things done the way I wanted, but somebody ought
to be standing up for the reason of logic and pointing out that my ex-wife
was given sole responsibility of the raising of my kids. I get them on
weekends and 2 weeks in summer, and I can do with them then what I want. I
can impose rules for living while in my house, and my kids will do what I
say. They might not like it, and they might not want to ever come back, but
that is my risk to take. I can do things that infuriate my ex-wife. I can
fill my kids with lies and inuendo. She can do the same thing. We can go at
each other through our kids. Thsi happens all the time. It is incredibly
stupid that adults would behave this way, but it happens. We have the Family
Court system to attempt to iron out the wrinkles that inevitabley develop in
this kind of relationship. The bottom line is, the court either slaps me on
the head and tells me to dumby up, or it slaps my ex-wife. Or, it slaps both
of us and tells us to stop acting like children, and we all go home.
In Newdow's case, this part of the process has apparently let us down. The
view that I have is that Newdow and his ex were engaged in some kind of
squabble that ex's frequently are engaged in, and the child was in the
middle. Newdow went to court to lash out at his wife about her taking the
child to church, and sending her to public schools where she could be
immersed in religious indoctrination because our school children recite the
Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Newdow has every right to engage in this sort of
pissing battle with his ex, but somebody should have looked at who has
custody of the child, noticed that no laws were being broken relative to the
health and welfare of the child, and told Newdow to get custody, and come
back when he has parenting responsibility of the child he is basing his
arguments on. Without full custody, he has no standing in determining what
is good for and what is not good for the child. He can take his concerns to
the mother, but she is apparently not receptive to what he feels. Oh well.
If he had custody, then I would be telling her the same thing.
IT IS MY OPINION
That the USSC will throw this case out. It will do so because Newdow can not
sue over the parenting decisions of the child's mother. The decisions are
lawful and reasonable, and Newdow will be found to have no standing because
he hasn't got custody.
If Newdow DID have standing through his custody, IT IS MY OPINION that the
USSC would still overturn on the grounds of ceremonial diety. Under God is a
ceremonial term that has no religious value. Under God is a descriptive term
of the vast majority of Americans, but as I am sure others will point out,
not All Americans. I don't think we need to be sensitive to each and every
American all the time, and any individual American should reasonably expect
that just because he personally does not harbor religious beliefs, or
harbors other religious beliefs, he or she should not be judged because of
those beliefs, or the lack of them. He, by arguing the issue in the Pledge,
seeks to get the majority to buckle to his demands, just as he claims I am
forcing the minority to buclke to my demands. I think that he as the
minority should accept that he is a minority and leave it alone. When he is
treated wrongly because of his belief system, or because he has no belief
system, then we must repair the problem that caused the wrong to be done.
But, simply saying under God when reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is not a
wrong that demands remedy.
So, I think the USSC will overturn the 9th because it will reject Newdow's
standing to bring the case in the first place, and the words "under God"
will be found to not be an endorsement of any particular religion, nor an
endorsement of religion in general. Instead, the USSC will find that the
Pledge is merely an acknowledgement that we have religion in America, and
government ought to be able to say that without demanding that its citizens
participate in religion. Government opens its sessions of Congress with
acknowledgements of religion. America opens its court sessions with
acknowledgements of religion. America has done this for well over 200 years.
I said, in June of 2002, that the USSC would hear this case, and was
laughted at. It turns out I was right then, I predict that I am right now.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 10:56:35 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|I can accept the notioin that I have oversimplified the issues here. I think
You never think Jeffy. Instead
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland )
:|the issues are essentially as I have said, but Newdow would never admit that
:|this was his issue. I readily admit that one must read between the lines to
:|arrive at this conclusion, but it is a reasonable conclusion to have arrived
In other words you are makign it up again.
:|at given the argumentative nature of the public statements of the child's
:|mother in regards to Newdow's involvement in rearing the child. .
Here are the issues jeffy.
One doesn't have to guess.
There are a number of issues that Mike Newdow is taking on.
Some of them are as follows:
Micheal Newdow exercsing his Constitutional right to
". . . petition the government for a redress of grievances."
First Amendment
----------------------------------------------------------
Which leads me to what I really could use. I don't know if you know, but I
actually have three cases now before the courts:
(1) Getting "under God" out of the Pledge (the "Pledge case");
(2) Getting an injunction to prevent future presidents from having
chaplains
at their inaugurations (the "Bush case"); and
(3) Getting rid of legislative chaplains (the "Marsh case").
-----------------------------------------------------------
[ok moving along here]
The Virginian-Pilot, Nation &World, Monday September 29, 2003, P. A3
HIGH COURT TO HEAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPEAL
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
[I said to him]
Now, I can always scan the article and send it to you.
[he replied]
I read it. Here's what I wrote to Mr. Savage.
[Savage had written in his article]
Last year, Michael A. Newdow, an unemployed emergency room physician ...
[Newdow]
I suppose that's technically correct. However, the implication is hardly
accurate. I'm a physician who has given up his livelihood to fight a system
of laws that - with no valid justification - rips children from perfectly
fit parents on a daily basis.
Along the same lines, I have had shared physical custody of my child since
birth, and we have an extremely close relationship. On more than half of
all weekends, she's with me, and sleeps in her own room in our house. I go
to all her soccer games, we travel together frequently and we speak with
each almost every day. In fact, I would guess that I spend more time with
my daughter than most working parents in intact families, which is hardly
the impression left by your article.
The only reasons this issue has arisen are (i) the State of California has
set up a system that grossly violates numerous constitutional mandates and
rewards certain parents for infringing upon the time the children and the
other parent are supposedly guaranteed together, and (ii) certain
individuals choose to take advantage of that unconstitutional system.
Please do the story on the family law!! ... it is without doubt - and
without hyperbole - the most destructive, unjustifiable and harmful system
of laws this country has had in place since slavery.
- Mike Newdow
**************************************************
:|IT IS MY OPINION
:|That the USSC will throw this case out. It will do so because Newdow can not
:|sue over the parenting decisions of the child's mother. The decisions are
:|lawful and reasonable, and Newdow will be found to have no standing because
:|he hasn't got custody.
NEWDOW I
C. Standing
Article III standing is a jurisdictional issue. See United
States v. Viltrakis, 108 F.3d 1159, 1160 (9th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, it “may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
including for the first time on appeal.” See A-Z Intern.
v. Phillips, 179 F.3d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 1999). To satisfy
standing requirements, a plaintiff must prove that “(1) it has
suffered an ‘injury in fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized
and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;
(2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.” Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs.
(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (citing Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992)).
Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice
that interferes with his right to direct the religious education
of his daughter. “Parents have a right to direct the religious
upbringing of their children and, on that basis, have standing
to protect their right.” Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177
F.3d 789, 795 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc); see also Grove v.
Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1532 (9th Cir. 1985)
(“Appellants have standing to challenge alleged violations of
the establishment clause of the First Amendment if they are
directly affected by use of [the challenged book] in the
English curriculum. [Appellant] has standing as a parent
whose right to direct the religious training of her child is
allegedly affected.”) (citation omitted).
Newdow has standing to challenge the EGUSD’s policy
and practice regarding the recitation of the Pledge because his
daughter is currently enrolled in elementary school in the
EGUSD. However, Newdow has no standing to challenge the
SCUSD’s policy and practice because his daughter is not currently
a student there. The SCUSD and its superintendent
have not caused Newdow or his daughter an “injury in fact”
that is “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”
Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 180 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-561).
The final question of standing relates to the 1954 Act. Specifically,
has Newdow suffered an “injury in fact” that is
“fairly traceable” to the enactment of the 1954 Act? Id.
We begin our inquiry by noting the general rule that the
standing requirements for an action brought under the Establishment
Clause are the same as for any other action. Valley
Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 488-90 (1982). “The
requirement of standing focuses on the party seeking to get
his complaint before a federal court and not on the issues he
wishes to have adjudicated. Moreover, we know of no principled
basis on which to create a hierarchy of constitutional values
or a complementary ‘sliding scale’ of standing which
might permit respondents to invoke the judicial power of the
United States.” Id. at 484 (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). In Valley Forge, an organization dedicated to
the separation of church and state brought suit challenging the
federal government’s grant of surplus federal property to a
church-related college. The suit alleged that this grant of real
property, without any financial payment by the college, was
a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Supreme Court
found that the plaintiff had standing neither as a taxpayer, see
id. at 479-80, nor as a party personally injured as a consequence
of the alleged unconstitutional action, see id. at 484-
86. The “psychological consequence presumably produced by
observation of conduct with which one disagrees . . . . is not
an injury sufficient to confer standing under Art. III, even
though the disagreement is phrased in constitutional terms.”
Id. at 485-86. The Court emphasized that “ ‘[t]he assumption
9115 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS
that if respondents have no standing to sue, no one would
have standing, is not a reason to find standing.’ ” Id. at 489
(quoting Schlesinger v. Reservists Comm. to Stop the War,
418 U.S. 208, 227 (1974)).
While Valley Forge remains good law, the Supreme Court
in more recent opinions has indirectly broadened the notion of
Establishment Clause standing in public education cases by
holding that the mere enactment of a statute may constitute an
Establishment Clause violation. In Wallace v. Jaffree, 472
U.S. 38 (1985), the Court considered an Establishment Clause
challenge to an Alabama statute that originally had authorized
a one-minute period of silence in public schools “for meditation,”
but was later amended to authorize a period of silence
“for meditation or voluntary prayer.” Id. at 40-42. Although
the previous form of the statute specifically allowed students
to use the moment of silence for “meditation,” silent prayer
was always an option. “[I]t is undisputed that at the time of
the enactment of [the amended statute] there was no governmental
practice impeding students from silently praying for
one minute at the beginning of each schoolday.” Id. at 57
n.45. Nor were students, under the amended form of the statute,
compelled to use the allotted time for prayer. In sum, the
amendment to the Alabama statute had no discernible effect
on public school students other than to inform them that the
state was encouraging them to engage in prayer during their
daily moment of silence. Because the Supreme Court has
repeatedly held that standing is a jurisdictional requirement,
the existence of which each federal court must determine for
itself, see Lujan, 504 U.S. at 559-561; FW/PBS, Inc. v. City
of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 230-31 (1990), we may presume that
in Wallace the Court examined the standing question before
deciding the merits, and that the Court determined that the
schoolchildren’s parents had standing to challenge the
amended Alabama statute.
Our reading of Wallace is supported by Santa Fe Independent
School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), where the
9116 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS
Court upheld a facial challenge to a school district’s policy of
permitting, but not requiring, prayer initiated and led by a student
at high school football games. Noting that “the Constitution
also requires that we keep in mind ‘the myriad, subtle
ways in which the Establishment Clause values can be eroded,’
” id. at 314 (quoting Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668,
694 (1984) (O’Connor, J., concurring)), the Court held that
the “mere passage by the District of a policy that has the purpose
and perception of government establishment of religion,”
id., violated the Establishment Clause. “[T]he simple enactment
of this policy, with the purpose and perception of school
endorsement of student prayer, was a constitutional violation.”
Id. at 316 (emphasis added).
In Wallace and Santa Fe, the Court looked at the language
of each statute, the context in which the statute was enacted,
and its legislative history to determine that the challenged
statute caused an injury in violation of the Establishment
Clause. “We refuse to turn a blind eye to the context in which
this policy arose, and that context quells any doubt that this
policy was implemented with the purpose of endorsing school
prayer.” Id. at 315. Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Wallace
noted that whether a statute actually conveys a message
of endorsement of religion is “not entirely a question of fact
.. . . . The relevant issue is whether an objective observer,
acquainted with the text, legislative history, and implementation
of the statute, would perceive it as state endorsement of
prayer in public schools.” 472 U.S. at 76 (O’Connor, J., concurring
in judgment). In Santa Fe, “[t]he text and history of
this policy . . . reinforce our objective student’s perception
that the prayer is, in actuality, encouraged by the school.” 530
U.S. at 308. In evaluating the purpose of the school district
policy, the Court found “most striking . . . the evolution of the
current policy.” Id. at 309. In Wallace, a review of the legislative
history led the Court to conclude that enactment of the
amended statute “was not motivated by any clearly secular
purpose — indeed, the statute had no secular purpose.” 472
U.S. at 56; see also id. at 57-60.
9117 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS
Operating within the above-described legal landscape, we
now turn to the question initially posed, namely, does Newdow
have standing to challenge the 1954 Act? Initially, we
note that the 1954 statute challenged by Newdow is similar to
the Alabama statute struck down in Wallace. Neither statute
works the traditional type of “injury in fact” that is implicated
when a statute compels or prohibits certain activity, nor do the
amendments brought about by these statutes lend themselves
to “as-applied” constitutional review. Nevertheless, the Court
in Wallace, at least implicitly, determined that the schoolchildren’s
parents had standing to attack the challenged statute.
Moreover, the legislative history of the 1954 Act shows that
the “under God” language was not meant to sit passively in
the federal code unbeknownst to the public; rather, the sponsors
of the amendment knew about and capitalized on the
state laws and school district rules that mandate recitation of
the Pledge. The legislation’s House sponsor, Representative
Louis C. Rabaut, testified at the Congressional hearing that
“the children of our land, in the daily recitation of the pledge
in school, will be daily impressed with a true understanding
of our way of life and its origins,” and this statement was
incorporated into the report of the House Judiciary Committee.
H.R. Rep. No. 83-1693, at 3 (1954), reprinted in 1954
U.S.C.C.A.N. 2339, 2341. Taken within its context, the 1954
addendum was designed to result in the recitation of the
words “under God” in school classrooms throughout the land
on a daily basis, and therefore constituted as much of an
injury-in-fact as the policies considered in Wallace and Santa
Fe. As discussed earlier, Newdow has standing as a parent to
challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the
religious education of his daughter. The mere enactment of
the 1954 Act in its particular context constitutes a religious
recitation policy that interferes with Newdow’s right to direct
the religious education of his daughter. Accordingly, we hold
that Newdow has standing to challenge the 1954 Act.
9118 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NEWDOW II
C. STANDING
Article III standing is a jurisdictional issue. See United
States v. Viltrakis, 108 F.3d 1159, 1160 (9th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, it "may be raised at any stage of the proceedings,
including for the first time on appeal." See A-Z Intern.
v. Phillips, 179 F.3d 1187, 1190-91 (9th Cir. 1999). To satisfy
standing requirements, a plaintiff must prove that "(1) it has
suffered an ‘injury in fact' that is (a) concrete and particularized
and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical;
(2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action
of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely
speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision." Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs.
(TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000) (citing Lujan v.
Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992)).
2803 NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS
Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice
that interferes with his right to direct the religious education
of his daughter. "Parents have a right to direct the religious
upbringing of their children and, on that basis, have standing
to protect their right." Doe v. Madison Sch. Dist. No. 321, 177
F.3d 789, 795 (9th Cir. 1999) (en banc); see also Grove v.
Mead Sch. Dist. No. 354, 753 F.2d 1528, 1532 (9th Cir. 1985)
("Appellants have standing to challenge alleged violations of
the establishment clause of the First Amendment if they are
directly affected by use of [the challenged book] in the
English curriculum. [Appellant] has standing as a parent
whose right to direct the religious training of her child is
allegedly affected.") (citation omitted).
Newdow has standing to challenge the EGUSD's policy
and practice regarding the recitation of the Pledge because his
daughter is currently enrolled in elementary school in the
EGUSD. However, Newdow has no standing to challenge the
SCUSD's policy and practice because his daughter is not currently
a student there. The SCUSD and its superintendent
have not caused Newdow or his daughter an "injury in fact"
that is "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical."
Laidlaw, 528 U.S. at 180 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-561).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Order Denying Sandra Banning's Motion to Intervene (December 4, 2002)
(Found Newdow had standing)
http://snurl.com/23h
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 10:39:19 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|IT IS MY OPINION
Which is meaningless. Even if the court were to rule exactly the way you
want, it doesn't salvage your opinion any. Your opinion wasn't why they
ruled that way if they did, and you sure as hell don't know law etc.
Such a ruling would be based on public and political pressure not law.
All the USSC will be doing would be changing the following truth from state
courts to the USSC or THIS USSC as well:
"State courts are less insulated from majoritarian politics, are less
willing or able to make popular decisions. "
(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: Toward a Usable Past: LIBERTY Under State
Constitutions. Edited by Paul Finkelman and Stephen E. Gotlieb. The
University of Georgia Press. (1991) p 325
:|That the USSC will throw this case out. It will do so because Newdow can not
:|sue over the parenting decisions of the child's mother. The decisions are
:|lawful and reasonable, and Newdow will be found to have no standing because
:|he hasn't got custody.
The Court might dismiss this case but not for any reason you claim.
It would be because of politics, not law.
Section C. Judicial Politics
http://snurl.com/5a3
=====================================
Newdow 1 found M. Newdow has standing:
NEWDOW I (JUNE 28 2002)
SOURCE OF INFORMATION NEWDOW v. U.S. CONGRESS p. 9131
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
SEE
C. STANDING
***************************************************
NEWDOW II (FEBRUARY 28, 2003)
THE NINTH CIRCUIT, NEWDOW v. .U.S. CONGRESS; No. 00-16423 Filed June 26,
2002 Amended February 28, 2003, p 2812
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/1AC18E7FEB98DB6D88256CDB000AFCF4/$file/0016423.pdf?openelement
SEE:
C. STANDING
=============================================
Order Denying Sandra Banning's Motion to Intervene (December 4, 2002)
(Found Newdow had standing)
http://snurl.com/23h
[Jeffy had said]
Ths custodial parent should have sole discretion on what the child is
exposed to on a daily basis. If the non-custodial parent has an issue, it
should get worked out in Family Court.
Sorry, that isn't how the courts have ruled in cases where
the noncustodian parent argued that they had a vested interest
in their child's religious upbringing; see Khalsa v. Khalsa,
Mesa v. Mesa, Munoz v. Munoz, or Robertson v. Robertson.
Here's part of Mesa v. Mesa:
http://jehovah.to/legal/custody/mesa.htm
....
[1] The issue of whether a court can restrain a noncustodial parent from
exposing a child to his or her religious beliefs and practices is one of
first impression in Florida. The courts confronted with this issue have
consistently overturned such a restriction, except where there is "a
clear, affirmative showing that these religious activities will be
harmful to the child." In re Marriage of Murga, 103 Cal.App.3d 498, 505,
163 Cal.Rptr. 79, 82 (1980), and authorities cited therein. Allowing a
court to choose one parent's religious beliefs and practices over
another's, in the absence of a clear showing of harm to the child, would
violate the first amendment. See Munoz v. Munoz, 79 Wash.2d 810, 489
P.2d 1133 (1971); Brown v. Szakal, 212 N.J.Super. 136, 514 A.2d 81
(1986).
....
Also see decisions that have found that courts can't favor
parents who provide religious instruction over parents who
don't, such as In The Matter of Guardianship of Faust, 123
So.2d 218, 220 (Miss. 1960) or Osteraas v. Osteraas
---
Merlyn LeRoy
**************************************
M. Newdow has said:
(After all he does know more about the facts than you do
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
I like to believe things I want to hear I don't like knowing the facts if
they aren't going to agree with what I want to believe and I especially
love passing along on the interest as facts things I haven't a clue about
their accuracy -- Strickland )
[ok moving along here]
The Virginian-Pilot, Nation &World, Monday September 29, 2003, P. A3
HIGH COURT TO HEAR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPEAL
By David G. Savage
Los Angeles Times
[I said to him]
Now, I can always scan the article and send it to you.
[he replied]
I read it. Here's what I wrote to Mr. Savage.
[Savage had written in his article]
Last year, Michael A. Newdow, an unemployed emergency room physician ...
[Newdow]
I suppose that's technically correct. However, the implication is hardly
accurate. I'm a physician who has given up his livelihood to fight a system
of laws that - with no valid justification - rips children from perfectly
fit parents on a daily basis.
Along the same lines, I have had shared physical custody of my child since
birth, and we have an extremely close relationship. On more than half of
all weekends, she's with me, and sleeps in her own room in our house. I go
to all her soccer games, we travel together frequently and we speak with
each almost every day. In fact, I would guess that I spend more time with
my daughter than most working parents in intact families, which is hardly
the impression left by your article.
The only reasons this issue has arisen are (i) the State of California has
set up a system that grossly violates numerous constitutional mandates and
rewards certain parents for infringing upon the time the children and the
other parent are supposedly guaranteed together, and (ii) certain
individuals choose to take advantage of that unconstitutional system.
Please do the story on the family law!! ... it is without doubt - and
without hyperbole - the most destructive, unjustifiable and harmful system
of laws this country has had in place since slavery.
- Mike Newdow
**************************************************
:|If Newdow DID have standing through his custody, IT IS MY OPINION that the
:|USSC would still overturn on the grounds of ceremonial diety.
Ceremonial deism isn't a legal principle. It is a cop out.
Why are you arguing in favor of reference to a meaningless "deity"
Ceremonial means something that has lost its actual importance, its real
meaning, after all that is exactly what the religious zealots and even the
courts have said over and over again.
Lost all religious meaning which is a polite way of trying to say has lots
its importance.
However, the reaction of the mass of sheep that live in this country and
the (I want to get re-elected politicians show how out of touch the courts
are with reality as they attempt to use this cop-out .
The Tangled Web of Ceremonial Deism
http://www.libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/382/1/2/
Ceremonial Deism
http://snurl.com/2rh
An interesting side note is that many religious people feels that it
devalues religion. Other religious people feel that it mocks religion by
indicating that our real religion is the worship of money. For many that is
true, that is their religion.
*******************************************************
This is a extremely radical Christian web site but I did find the following
to be interesting.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/c_deism.htm
CHRISTIANS AGAINST "CEREMONIAL DEISM."
Another description of the "American civil religion" is "CEREMONIAL DEISM."
Although many Christians used to claim victory when Christian symbols were
approved by a court, many are now recognizing these victories as pyrrhic.
[Pyrrhic victory--a victory gained at too great a cost.]
*************************************************
:\Under God is a
:|ceremonial term that has no religious value.
If it has no religious value then why bother having it there.? Truly devout
deeply religious people detest this cheapening of their beliefs that the
government has undertaken by such things as "In God We trust" on coins and
posted in buildings, "under God" in the pledge.
But your lip service brand of religion doesn't understand that and actually
wants to keep that cheapening going on .
[SNIPPED THE REST OF THE SOAPBOX]
:|I said, in June of 2002, that the USSC would hear this case, and was
:|laughted at. It turns out I was right then, I predict that I am right now.
YOU ALSO SAID AT TIMES THAT THE EN BANC HEARING WOULD OVERTURN THE THREE
JUDGE PANEL. It didn't happen.
You are till being laughed at Jeffy. Even a total babbling idiot can be
right on occasion.
Considering this particular court, it's particular make up and the fact
that it has already proven itself to be one of the most politically USSC
that we have had I predict there is a really good chance it won't have the
balls to do the right thing and it will bow to political pressure.
There are a number of Constitutional scholars that say that based on the
merits Newdow should win hands down, based on this particular court and its
recent history, he doesn't have a snowballs chance of winning.
That doesn't speak well for the once branch of government that is suppose
to be above the political *****.
That only shows how poorly this court is viewed.
This court will probably rule against Newdow by taking the easy way out and
ending the case at the level of the first question (Standing) That way it
won't have to deal with the real questions.
However, if it does that it hasn't ended it, the merit side of the question
will still be out there. All anyone has to do that doesn't hand the courts
a cop out (has unquestioned standing) and once more shove it in the courts
face.
The policy of the school in this case is, as the 9th stated incorrect.
The addition of "under God" to a previously secular Pledge is as the 9th
stated a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Justice Kennedy, stated in past rulings that "under God" would violate the
endorsement aspect of the Lemon Test. Kennedy also wrote the majority
opinion in Lee v Weisman ruling graduation prayer as per the facts of Lee v
Weisman was unconstitutional. O'Connor wrote the Lemon Test and has
protected it all these years, it is one of her legacies. Scalia has
removed himself from any involvement of this case.
The other four justices usually go together and usually vote in favor of
strict separation.
It would take 5 justices to overrule the 9th if they actually decided the
case on the merits. but only 4 to uphold the 9th in the 9th circuit only
and would take 5 justices to uphold the 9th and make it the law of the
land.
They would have to rise to new levels of ***** and double talk to
overrule on the merits considering their past positions and past voting
habits on previous church state cases, but I am sure if they wan't to bow
to public and political pressure and do the wrong thing, they are perfectly
capable of that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:54:48 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Do you think that the 9th Circuit Court was
salivating in phantasmagorical delirium to take this case?
I am not sure I even know what that means. In fact, I am pretty sure I do
not know what it means.
http://www.m-w.com
Do you think if there had been an easy way out of it such as: "Naughty,
naughty; take your parental squabbles to family court" they wouldn't have
done so?
Too bad you weren't there to give your expert advice!!
I can accept the notioin that I have oversimplified the issues here.
Read the decision and perhaps things may become more clear.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 01:30:27 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031021225053.6046J-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
Do you think that the 9th Circuit Court was
salivating in phantasmagorical delirium to take this case?
I am not sure I even know what that means. In fact, I am pretty sure I
do
not know what it means.
http://www.m-w.com
Do you think if there had been an easy way out of it such as:
"Naughty,
naughty; take your parental squabbles to family court" they wouldn't
have
done so?
Too bad you weren't there to give your expert advice!!
I can accept the notioin that I have oversimplified the issues here.
Read the decision and perhaps things may become more clear.
Why should I read the decision of the 9th, it is wrong, and is being
disputed. It will eventually be overturned, at which point it will not
matter. It is a wrong decision based on a variety of flaws. Among them are
that Newdow ought not have brought the case in the first place.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
22 Oct 2003 03:25:56 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote:
:|Why should I read the decision of the 9th, it is wrong,
LOL. it is law.
:|and is being
:|disputed.
Yep.
:|It will eventually be overturned, at which point it will not
:|matter.
Maybe it will be, maybe it won't be.
:|It is a wrong decision based on a variety of flaws.
It is law, and will remain law unless reversed.
To date that has not happened. It may never happen.
You sure as hell are too stupid to present legal evidence showing it is
flawed.
If it gets reversed it will be reversed because of politics, not because of
law. SEE:
(1) F. JUDICIAL TECHNIQUES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LITIGATION
§ 15:33. Avoiding the constitutional issue
(2) Section C. Judicial Politics
(3) ANOTHER INTERESTING ARTICLE ON MULTIMEMBER COURTS"
Sincere and Strategic Voting Norms on Multimember Courts, by Evan H.
Caminkel, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 97, No. 8, August 1999, p 2297
http://snurl.com/ghk
AND
http://snurl.com/gef
AND
http://snurl.com/glf
:|Among them are
:|that Newdow ought not have brought the case in the first place.
False. Ever hear of this:
Every American citizen (and probably a number of non-citizens) has a
constitutional right to ". . . petition the government for a redress of
grievances."
Regardless of your opinion he had every right and most definitely should
have brought the suit.
====================================
[Jeffy had asked another]
Why do you feel the constant need to be nasty?
To you? Because you are an ignoramus who not only does not check his
facts, but posts endlessly repeating stuff that has been disproven
several times. You also seem to think that your unsupported opinion
is of interest to other people.
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier,
[To that I add]
Jeff - I don't have a clue what I am talking about, but I am good at
pretending and making it up as I go along so don't confuse me with the
facts, my mind is made up. I stereotype and prejudge. It has always worked
well in the past, why change now - Strickland
Jeffy -- maybe, I heard, but didn't bother to do any independent research,
[ He says it gives him a headache] I like to believe things I want to hear.
I don't like knowing the facts if they aren't going to agree with what I
want to believe and I especially love passing along on the internet, as
facts, things I haven't a clue about their accuracy -- Strickland )
[jeffy had said]
It is the mother that has custodial and full guardianship
rights of the child. Newdow has no rights relative to this child and her
rearing.
YOU STUPID FUCKING ILLITERATE MORON, READ WHAT YOU AGREED
WITH EARLIER! THE COURTS HAVE RULED THAT NONCUSTODIAL
PARENTS **DO** HAVE RIGHTS TO THE RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING
OF THEIR CHILDREN, YOU BRAIN-DAMAGED TURD!
Merlyn LeRoy
========================================================
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dpr" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:04:16 PM |
|
|
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1031021162252.26242V-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Jeff Strickland wrote:
The issue is that a simple child rearing issue that is a day-to-day
thing
can now be brought to the court system for no other reason than somebody
doesn't approve of the way a child is being raised. There might be
nothing
wrong with the way the child is being raised, as seems to be the case in
Newdow, but there is merely a difference in child rearing philosophies.
Do you think that the 9th Circuit Court was salivating in phatasmagorical
delirium to take this case?
From all appearances that is exactly what the 9th circuit was doing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
21 Oct 2003 10:50:26 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, dpr wrote:
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
Do you think that the 9th Circuit Court was salivating in
phantasmagorical delirium to take this case?
From all appearances that is exactly what the 9th circuit was doing.
The only delirious, phantasmagorical salivating I have noticed is coming
from those folks who go balistic when it is suggested that the pre-'54
pledge got us through a bunch of wars and other crises and it would do
much more to promote inclusion than the post-'54 rendition.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Falwell's distortion of the pledge issue |
20 Oct 2003 09:30:25 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Oct 2003, dpr wrote:
Have you read the decision?
Are you familiar with the merits of the case?
The justices ruled on the merits of the case.
If they had done that, they would have ruled against Newdow.
Oh.
Too bad you weren't there to give them you advice.
One he is not the legal custodian, Two his daughter is not being harmed as
he alleges, three he has no standing to bring the suit to court. He never
informed his daughter or her mother who is the sole legal guardian that he
was filing a suit on behalf of his daughter.
How do you know the mother is "the sole legal guardian" ?
http://marty-center.uchicago.edu/webforum/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
