Speakeasy forum

General discussion

9th Circuit Court reversed AGAIN. Remains MOST REVERSED ...

by Edward ODaniel / June 14, 2004 5:36 AM PDT

Court in the nation!

Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case on Technicality

Justices Do Not Decide Constitutionality of Reference to God in Pledge of Allegiance
By William Branigin and Charles Lane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 14, 2004; 1:30 PM


The Supreme Court ruled today that a California atheist did not have the legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, dismissing on procedural grounds a lower court's ruling in his favor but sidestepping the broader question of whether the pledge itself is constitutional.

email == wolfcritters@yahoo.com
password == kerry666

Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: 9th Circuit Court reversed AGAIN. Remains MOST REVERSED ...
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: 9th Circuit Court reversed AGAIN. Remains MOST REVERSED ...
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
At least for the moment, we don't have to worry about this
by Kiddpeat / June 14, 2004 7:07 AM PDT

court's idiotic rulings, but heaven help us if Kerry becomes President and appoints some justices.

Collapse -
Re: At least for the moment, we don't have to worry about th
by C1ay / June 14, 2004 11:34 PM PDT

You'd have thought the District court would have noticed the father's lack of legal standing to speak for a child he didn't have custody of. That was kind of idiotic....

Collapse -
Yep!
by Evie / June 14, 2004 11:40 PM PDT

Been listening to all the punditry, some of which are complaining that the Supreme Court didn't "really address the issue" but dismissed on a technicality. Disappointing for those seeking closure, for sure, but it was the right thing to do. If Ginsburg agreed, surely even the 9th Circuit should have seen this coming and never let it get this far!

Evie Happy

Collapse -
Re: Yep!
by C1ay / June 15, 2004 12:21 AM PDT
In reply to: Yep!
Disappointing for those seeking closure, for sure...

Closure on this issue with this case would not have stood the test of time. The same technicality that this case was reversed on would have tainted any closure on the issue itself.

Collapse -
Re: 9th Circuit Court reversed AGAIN. Remains MOST REVERSED

Hi, Ed.

Yes, by an accident of timinjg, fewer ultra-conservatives have been appointed to that one court. Its rulings follow the philosophy that used to typify our justice system back when that was an appropriate name -- and hopefully will again one day. OTOH, the Supreme Court is still close enough to balanced that their unanimous ruling overturning the 9th indicates that this particular ruling was indeed well outside the mainstream. The sad thing is that I remember when Rhenquist was routinely the 1 in 8-1 rulings (that's how far to the right he is), and now he sets the tone <shudder>.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Collapse -
You are aware, aren't you, Dave....
by J. Vega / June 14, 2004 10:10 AM PDT

Dave you are aware of the fact that Newdow, the party filing the suit, was never married to the child's mother, aren't you?
Yes, this particular situation was "outside the mainstream", but do you see the "standing" problem? Had the Court said that he had legal standing it could have opened up quite a "bucket of worms", as there are many cases of other people who have had children out of wedlock. Think about it.

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?