Correct me if I'm wrong..

[Dusty]

...but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told" ..you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the Pledge.
I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
to **** in.

Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's the
Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this, can
expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

[Bob]

Dusty wrote:
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told" ..you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.

You heard right. SCOTUS decided that fathers are "visitors" in our
children's lives, and we do not have "standing" to make decisions about
our children or to sue and demand that schools listen to our desires and
decisions for our children. Those rights are limited to the mothers.



> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
> to **** in.

It is a decision that set men's rights back 30 years.

It's going to take a lot more grieving fathers before the law is
changed. Let the "DC Sniper" be a shot across their bow.




> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this, can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge.case.ap/index.html

FINDLAW full decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624


> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Tell us the story.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[Bob]

Dusty wrote:
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told" ..you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.

You heard right. SCOTUS decided that fathers are "visitors" in our
children's lives, and we do not have "standing" to make decisions about
our children or to sue and demand that schools listen to our desires and
decisions for our children. Those rights are limited to the mothers.



> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
> to **** in.

It is a decision that set men's rights back 30 years.

It's going to take a lot more grieving fathers before the law is
changed. Let the "DC Sniper" be a shot across their bow.




> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this, can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge.case.ap/index.html

FINDLAW full decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624


> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Tell us the story.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[Bob]

Dusty wrote:
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told" ..you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.

You heard right. SCOTUS decided that fathers are "visitors" in our
children's lives, and we do not have "standing" to make decisions about
our children or to sue and demand that schools listen to our desires and
decisions for our children. Those rights are limited to the mothers.



> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
> to **** in.

It is a decision that set men's rights back 30 years.

It's going to take a lot more grieving fathers before the law is
changed. Let the "DC Sniper" be a shot across their bow.




> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this, can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/scotus.pledge.case.ap/index.html

FINDLAW full decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624


> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Tell us the story.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[P. Fritz]

"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.
>
> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or
other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised?
Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a
pot
> to **** in.
>
> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!
>
> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Simple answer.....the lefties on the bench side stepped the issue, since
if they ruled the way they wanted, it would assure another 4 years of Bush
on the white house. The basis was that the mother had full legal and
physical custody, and therefore the father had no standing to bring the
case.......again, it was a lagal tap dancing to avoid making a decision that
would swing the election against the p.c. crowd.


>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminate the impossible and whatever
> remains, no matter how improbable, must
> be the truth.
>
> ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---
>
>

[P. Fritz]

"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.
>
> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or
other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised?
Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a
pot
> to **** in.
>
> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!
>
> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Simple answer.....the lefties on the bench side stepped the issue, since
if they ruled the way they wanted, it would assure another 4 years of Bush
on the white house. The basis was that the mother had full legal and
physical custody, and therefore the father had no standing to bring the
case.......again, it was a lagal tap dancing to avoid making a decision that
would swing the election against the p.c. crowd.


>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminate the impossible and whatever
> remains, no matter how improbable, must
> be the truth.
>
> ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---
>
>

[P. Fritz]

"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.
>
> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or
other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised?
Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a
pot
> to **** in.
>
> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!
>
> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Simple answer.....the lefties on the bench side stepped the issue, since
if they ruled the way they wanted, it would assure another 4 years of Bush
on the white house. The basis was that the mother had full legal and
physical custody, and therefore the father had no standing to bring the
case.......again, it was a lagal tap dancing to avoid making a decision that
would swing the election against the p.c. crowd.


>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminate the impossible and whatever
> remains, no matter how improbable, must
> be the truth.
>
> ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.

What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the Supreme
Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal ruling
based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a technicality,
the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.

"Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No lawsuit,
no ruling.

The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about 95%
of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
the west call it the 9th Circus Court.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.

What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the Supreme
Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal ruling
based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a technicality,
the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.

"Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No lawsuit,
no ruling.

The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about 95%
of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
the west call it the 9th Circus Court.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.

What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the Supreme
Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal ruling
based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a technicality,
the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.

"Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No lawsuit,
no ruling.

The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about 95%
of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
the west call it the 9th Circus Court.

[Editor -- Child Support News]

Here you go, Dusty:

FAITH & FREEDOM ALERT

RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT OVER U.S. SUPREME COURT'S
DISMISSAL OF PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CASE ON TECHNICALITY


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

High Court Rules That Michael Newdow Does Not Have Legal Authority to Speak
for Daughter

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal on a technicality of Elk
Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, John W. Whitehead, president of The
Rutherford Institute, expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court chose
to sidestep the issue rather than ruling on the weighty questions before the
Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California atheist cannot
challenge the practice of schoolchildren reciting the phrase "one nation
under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, because he does not have the legal
authority to speak for his daughter, who is a student in the Elk Grove
School District.

"America's founders recognized that our rights, as the Declaration of
Independence states, are 'endowed by the Creator.' In fact, they staked
their 'lives, [their] fortunes and their sacred honor' on that truth,"
stated Whitehead. "We had hoped that the Court would set the record straight
once and for all by confirming the unequivocal affirmation of thirteen
Supreme Court Justices across four decades that state-led recitation of
'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment
Clause. While we are pleased that this time-honored tradition can continue,
The Rutherford Institute remains committed to standing in defense of the
constitutionality of this practice should any future challenges arise."

Although the high court did not rule on the constitutionality of the phrase
itself, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did issue a concurring opinion
declaring that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the
Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with
Rehnquist's opinion. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a friend
of the court brief with the U. S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Elk Grove
Unified School District in Sacramento, Calif.

In asking the U. S. Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling,
Institute attorneys had asked the court to address the question of whether
the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, Institute
attorneys had asked the court to present a clear vision of the Establishment
Clause that would permit state education officials to recognize in public
ceremonies and patriotic practices the theistic origin of the American
conception of rights. A copy of the Institute's brief is available online at
www.rutherford.org.

This case arose after Michael Newdow, an atheist, objected to the pledge's
acknowledgment that the United States of America is one nation "under God."
As a result of its compliance with a California law that required schools to
observe and lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance prior
to the beginning of the school day, the Elk Grove School District became the
target of Michael Newdow's lawsuit.

Arguing that his daughter, who attends the Elk Grove school, should not be
subjected to hearing the recitation of the pledge, Newdow sued the schools
for what he claimed was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Despite
the Elk Grove School District's claim that the recitation of the pledge was
voluntary for students and provided them with an opportunity to reflect upon
America's history, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the
school, declaring that the use of the pledge in public schools violates the
Constitution and amounts to a government endorsement of religion.

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties
organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.



"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.
>
> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
> to **** in.
>
> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!
>
> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminate the impossible and whatever
> remains, no matter how improbable, must
> be the truth.
>
> ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---
>
>

[Editor -- Child Support News]

Here you go, Dusty:

FAITH & FREEDOM ALERT

RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT OVER U.S. SUPREME COURT'S
DISMISSAL OF PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CASE ON TECHNICALITY


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

High Court Rules That Michael Newdow Does Not Have Legal Authority to Speak
for Daughter

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal on a technicality of Elk
Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, John W. Whitehead, president of The
Rutherford Institute, expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court chose
to sidestep the issue rather than ruling on the weighty questions before the
Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California atheist cannot
challenge the practice of schoolchildren reciting the phrase "one nation
under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, because he does not have the legal
authority to speak for his daughter, who is a student in the Elk Grove
School District.

"America's founders recognized that our rights, as the Declaration of
Independence states, are 'endowed by the Creator.' In fact, they staked
their 'lives, [their] fortunes and their sacred honor' on that truth,"
stated Whitehead. "We had hoped that the Court would set the record straight
once and for all by confirming the unequivocal affirmation of thirteen
Supreme Court Justices across four decades that state-led recitation of
'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment
Clause. While we are pleased that this time-honored tradition can continue,
The Rutherford Institute remains committed to standing in defense of the
constitutionality of this practice should any future challenges arise."

Although the high court did not rule on the constitutionality of the phrase
itself, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did issue a concurring opinion
declaring that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the
Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with
Rehnquist's opinion. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a friend
of the court brief with the U. S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Elk Grove
Unified School District in Sacramento, Calif.

In asking the U. S. Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling,
Institute attorneys had asked the court to address the question of whether
the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, Institute
attorneys had asked the court to present a clear vision of the Establishment
Clause that would permit state education officials to recognize in public
ceremonies and patriotic practices the theistic origin of the American
conception of rights. A copy of the Institute's brief is available online at
www.rutherford.org.

This case arose after Michael Newdow, an atheist, objected to the pledge's
acknowledgment that the United States of America is one nation "under God."
As a result of its compliance with a California law that required schools to
observe and lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance prior
to the beginning of the school day, the Elk Grove School District became the
target of Michael Newdow's lawsuit.

Arguing that his daughter, who attends the Elk Grove school, should not be
subjected to hearing the recitation of the pledge, Newdow sued the schools
for what he claimed was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Despite
the Elk Grove School District's claim that the recitation of the pledge was
voluntary for students and provided them with an opportunity to reflect upon
America's history, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the
school, declaring that the use of the pledge in public schools violates the
Constitution and amounts to a government endorsement of religion.

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties
organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.



"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.
>
> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
> to **** in.
>
> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!
>
> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminate the impossible and whatever
> remains, no matter how improbable, must
> be the truth.
>
> ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---
>
>

[Editor -- Child Support News]

Here you go, Dusty:

FAITH & FREEDOM ALERT

RUTHERFORD INSTITUTE EXPRESSES DISAPPOINTMENT OVER U.S. SUPREME COURT'S
DISMISSAL OF PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CASE ON TECHNICALITY


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----

High Court Rules That Michael Newdow Does Not Have Legal Authority to Speak
for Daughter

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court's dismissal on a technicality of Elk
Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, John W. Whitehead, president of The
Rutherford Institute, expressed disappointment that the Supreme Court chose
to sidestep the issue rather than ruling on the weighty questions before the
Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California atheist cannot
challenge the practice of schoolchildren reciting the phrase "one nation
under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, because he does not have the legal
authority to speak for his daughter, who is a student in the Elk Grove
School District.

"America's founders recognized that our rights, as the Declaration of
Independence states, are 'endowed by the Creator.' In fact, they staked
their 'lives, [their] fortunes and their sacred honor' on that truth,"
stated Whitehead. "We had hoped that the Court would set the record straight
once and for all by confirming the unequivocal affirmation of thirteen
Supreme Court Justices across four decades that state-led recitation of
'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment
Clause. While we are pleased that this time-honored tradition can continue,
The Rutherford Institute remains committed to standing in defense of the
constitutionality of this practice should any future challenges arise."

Although the high court did not rule on the constitutionality of the phrase
itself, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did issue a concurring opinion
declaring that the pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the
Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with
Rehnquist's opinion. Attorneys for The Rutherford Institute filed a friend
of the court brief with the U. S. Supreme Court on behalf of the Elk Grove
Unified School District in Sacramento, Calif.

In asking the U. S. Supreme Court to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling,
Institute attorneys had asked the court to address the question of whether
the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Specifically, Institute
attorneys had asked the court to present a clear vision of the Establishment
Clause that would permit state education officials to recognize in public
ceremonies and patriotic practices the theistic origin of the American
conception of rights. A copy of the Institute's brief is available online at
www.rutherford.org.

This case arose after Michael Newdow, an atheist, objected to the pledge's
acknowledgment that the United States of America is one nation "under God."
As a result of its compliance with a California law that required schools to
observe and lead willing students in reciting the Pledge of Allegiance prior
to the beginning of the school day, the Elk Grove School District became the
target of Michael Newdow's lawsuit.

Arguing that his daughter, who attends the Elk Grove school, should not be
subjected to hearing the recitation of the pledge, Newdow sued the schools
for what he claimed was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. Despite
the Elk Grove School District's claim that the recitation of the pledge was
voluntary for students and provided them with an opportunity to reflect upon
America's history, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the
school, declaring that the use of the pledge in public schools violates the
Constitution and amounts to a government endorsement of religion.

The Rutherford Institute is an international, nonprofit civil liberties
organization committed to defending constitutional and human rights.



"Dusty" > wrote in message
...
> ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
> Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
> don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> lost his case.
>
> I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
> wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
> don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
> I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
> to **** in.
>
> Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
> reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
> there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
> Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
> expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!
>
> Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Eliminate the impossible and whatever
> remains, no matter how improbable, must
> be the truth.
>
> ---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---
>
>

[AZ Astrea]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> Supreme
> > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> ..you
> > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> > lost his case.
>
> What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
Supreme
> Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
> Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
> on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
ruling
> based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
technicality,
> the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
>
> "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
> can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
lawsuit,
> no ruling.
-------------------------
I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
be with each parent 50-50.

I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
legal standing" as a father.

~AZ~

>
> The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
> legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
> to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
95%
> of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
> the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
>
>

[AZ Astrea]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> Supreme
> > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> ..you
> > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> > lost his case.
>
> What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
Supreme
> Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
> Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
> on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
ruling
> based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
technicality,
> the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
>
> "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
> can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
lawsuit,
> no ruling.
-------------------------
I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
be with each parent 50-50.

I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
legal standing" as a father.

~AZ~

>
> The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
> legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
> to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
95%
> of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
> the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
>
>

[AZ Astrea]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "Dusty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> Supreme
> > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> ..you
> > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> > lost his case.
>
> What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
Supreme
> Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
> Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
> on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
ruling
> based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
technicality,
> the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
>
> "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
> can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
lawsuit,
> no ruling.
-------------------------
I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
be with each parent 50-50.

I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
legal standing" as a father.

~AZ~

>
> The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
> legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
> to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
95%
> of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
> the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence,
he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> be with each parent 50-50.
>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.

I understand what you and others are saying. This case would have had a
more palatable outcome if the court had gone ahead and ruled on the issue of
the pledge. I believe the issue of the father's lack of "standing" is a
solid legal decision to not make a decision. If the SC had ruled
otherwise, they would have overturned 200 years of legal precedence
requiring standing to be the first legal hurdle.

But, legally, the father made a strategic error in his lawsuit. He failed
to have his daughter "join" the lawsuit and be a party. As it came before
the SC the lawsuit was viewed as the father's personal agenda that was
contrary to the mother's and child's position on the issue. The father's
suit was about what he wanted for his daughter, not what his daughter wanted
and had asked him to help her with because she objected to hearing the
pledge. The SC had previously ruled no child has to say the pledge. This
case was about the child hearing the pledge. The child had the right, under
the previous SC decision, to leave the room when the pledge was recited.

BTW - This father is the same father who wants "In God We Trust" removed
from all of the U.S. currency.

[Bob Whiteside]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence,
he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> be with each parent 50-50.
>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.

I understand what you and others are saying. This case would have had a
more palatable outcome if the court had gone ahead and ruled on the issue of
the pledge. I believe the issue of the father's lack of "standing" is a
solid legal decision to not make a decision. If the SC had ruled
otherwise, they would have overturned 200 years of legal precedence
requiring standing to be the first legal hurdle.

But, legally, the father made a strategic error in his lawsuit. He failed
to have his daughter "join" the lawsuit and be a party. As it came before
the SC the lawsuit was viewed as the father's personal agenda that was
contrary to the mother's and child's position on the issue. The father's
suit was about what he wanted for his daughter, not what his daughter wanted
and had asked him to help her with because she objected to hearing the
pledge. The SC had previously ruled no child has to say the pledge. This
case was about the child hearing the pledge. The child had the right, under
the previous SC decision, to leave the room when the pledge was recited.

BTW - This father is the same father who wants "In God We Trust" removed
from all of the U.S. currency.

[Bob Whiteside]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence,
he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> be with each parent 50-50.
>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.

I understand what you and others are saying. This case would have had a
more palatable outcome if the court had gone ahead and ruled on the issue of
the pledge. I believe the issue of the father's lack of "standing" is a
solid legal decision to not make a decision. If the SC had ruled
otherwise, they would have overturned 200 years of legal precedence
requiring standing to be the first legal hurdle.

But, legally, the father made a strategic error in his lawsuit. He failed
to have his daughter "join" the lawsuit and be a party. As it came before
the SC the lawsuit was viewed as the father's personal agenda that was
contrary to the mother's and child's position on the issue. The father's
suit was about what he wanted for his daughter, not what his daughter wanted
and had asked him to help her with because she objected to hearing the
pledge. The SC had previously ruled no child has to say the pledge. This
case was about the child hearing the pledge. The child had the right, under
the previous SC decision, to leave the room when the pledge was recited.

BTW - This father is the same father who wants "In God We Trust" removed
from all of the U.S. currency.

[Chris]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence,
he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> be with each parent 50-50.

Try telling that to a family kourt judge, and she will say "what are you
CRAZY?", and laugh you out of her kourt.

>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.
>
> ~AZ~
>
> >
> > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the
basic
> > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this
case
> > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
> 95%
> > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live
in
> > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence,
he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> be with each parent 50-50.

Try telling that to a family kourt judge, and she will say "what are you
CRAZY?", and laugh you out of her kourt.

>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.
>
> ~AZ~
>
> >
> > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the
basic
> > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this
case
> > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
> 95%
> > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live
in
> > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence,
he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> be with each parent 50-50.

Try telling that to a family kourt judge, and she will say "what are you
CRAZY?", and laugh you out of her kourt.

>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.
>
> ~AZ~
>
> >
> > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the
basic
> > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this
case
> > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
> 95%
> > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live
in
> > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > > Supreme
> > > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was
told"
> > > ..you
> > > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect.
Hence,
> he
> > > > lost his case.
> > >
> > > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> > Supreme
> > > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
> "standing."
> > > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
> lawsuit
> > > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> > ruling
> > > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> > technicality,
> > > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> > >
> > > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
> lawsuit
> > > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> > lawsuit,
> > > no ruling.
> > -------------------------
> > I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> > determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
> the
> > court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> > non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> > mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
> should
> > be with each parent 50-50.
> >
> > I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
> says
> > dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> > legal standing" as a father.
>
> I understand what you and others are saying. This case would have had a
> more palatable outcome if the court had gone ahead and ruled on the issue
of
> the pledge. I believe the issue of the father's lack of "standing" is a
> solid legal decision to not make a decision. If the SC had ruled
> otherwise, they would have overturned 200 years of legal precedence
> requiring standing to be the first legal hurdle.
>
> But, legally, the father made a strategic error in his lawsuit. He failed
> to have his daughter "join" the lawsuit and be a party.

Had he done that, no doubt the kourt would have said the filing was invalid
since the mother had legal custody, and then just tossed it out.

> As it came before
> the SC the lawsuit was viewed as the father's personal agenda that was
> contrary to the mother's and child's position on the issue. The father's
> suit was about what he wanted for his daughter, not what his daughter
wanted
> and had asked him to help her with because she objected to hearing the
> pledge. The SC had previously ruled no child has to say the pledge. This
> case was about the child hearing the pledge. The child had the right,
under
> the previous SC decision, to leave the room when the pledge was recited.
>
> BTW - This father is the same father who wants "In God We Trust" removed
> from all of the U.S. currency.
>
>

[Chris]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > > Supreme
> > > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was
told"
> > > ..you
> > > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect.
Hence,
> he
> > > > lost his case.
> > >
> > > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> > Supreme
> > > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
> "standing."
> > > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
> lawsuit
> > > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> > ruling
> > > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> > technicality,
> > > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> > >
> > > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
> lawsuit
> > > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> > lawsuit,
> > > no ruling.
> > -------------------------
> > I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> > determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
> the
> > court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> > non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> > mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
> should
> > be with each parent 50-50.
> >
> > I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
> says
> > dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> > legal standing" as a father.
>
> I understand what you and others are saying. This case would have had a
> more palatable outcome if the court had gone ahead and ruled on the issue
of
> the pledge. I believe the issue of the father's lack of "standing" is a
> solid legal decision to not make a decision. If the SC had ruled
> otherwise, they would have overturned 200 years of legal precedence
> requiring standing to be the first legal hurdle.
>
> But, legally, the father made a strategic error in his lawsuit. He failed
> to have his daughter "join" the lawsuit and be a party.

Had he done that, no doubt the kourt would have said the filing was invalid
since the mother had legal custody, and then just tossed it out.

> As it came before
> the SC the lawsuit was viewed as the father's personal agenda that was
> contrary to the mother's and child's position on the issue. The father's
> suit was about what he wanted for his daughter, not what his daughter
wanted
> and had asked him to help her with because she objected to hearing the
> pledge. The SC had previously ruled no child has to say the pledge. This
> case was about the child hearing the pledge. The child had the right,
under
> the previous SC decision, to leave the room when the pledge was recited.
>
> BTW - This father is the same father who wants "In God We Trust" removed
> from all of the U.S. currency.
>
>

[Chris]

"Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > > Supreme
> > > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was
told"
> > > ..you
> > > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect.
Hence,
> he
> > > > lost his case.
> > >
> > > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> > Supreme
> > > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
> "standing."
> > > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
> lawsuit
> > > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> > ruling
> > > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> > technicality,
> > > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> > >
> > > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
> lawsuit
> > > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> > lawsuit,
> > > no ruling.
> > -------------------------
> > I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> > determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
> the
> > court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> > non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> > mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
> should
> > be with each parent 50-50.
> >
> > I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
> says
> > dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> > legal standing" as a father.
>
> I understand what you and others are saying. This case would have had a
> more palatable outcome if the court had gone ahead and ruled on the issue
of
> the pledge. I believe the issue of the father's lack of "standing" is a
> solid legal decision to not make a decision. If the SC had ruled
> otherwise, they would have overturned 200 years of legal precedence
> requiring standing to be the first legal hurdle.
>
> But, legally, the father made a strategic error in his lawsuit. He failed
> to have his daughter "join" the lawsuit and be a party.

Had he done that, no doubt the kourt would have said the filing was invalid
since the mother had legal custody, and then just tossed it out.

> As it came before
> the SC the lawsuit was viewed as the father's personal agenda that was
> contrary to the mother's and child's position on the issue. The father's
> suit was about what he wanted for his daughter, not what his daughter
wanted
> and had asked him to help her with because she objected to hearing the
> pledge. The SC had previously ruled no child has to say the pledge. This
> case was about the child hearing the pledge. The child had the right,
under
> the previous SC decision, to leave the room when the pledge was recited.
>
> BTW - This father is the same father who wants "In God We Trust" removed
> from all of the U.S. currency.
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
> be with each parent 50-50.
>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.

It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for this
particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the mother has
sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education, religion
and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody situation
for that particular family.

I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization for all
fathers, all children, all families.

>
> ~AZ~
>
> >
> > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
> > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
> > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
> 95%
> > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
> > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> >
> >
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
> be with each parent 50-50.
>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.

It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for this
particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the mother has
sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education, religion
and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody situation
for that particular family.

I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization for all
fathers, all children, all families.

>
> ~AZ~
>
> >
> > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
> > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
> > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
> 95%
> > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
> > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> >
> >
>
>

[Moon Shyne]

"AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> k.net...
> >
> > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > Supreme
> > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
> > ..you
> > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
> > > lost his case.
> >
> > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> Supreme
> > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
> > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
> > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> ruling
> > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> technicality,
> > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> >
> > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
> > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> lawsuit,
> > no ruling.
> -------------------------
> I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
> court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
> be with each parent 50-50.
>
> I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
> dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> legal standing" as a father.

It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for this
particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the mother has
sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education, religion
and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody situation
for that particular family.

I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization for all
fathers, all children, all families.

>
> ~AZ~
>
> >
> > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
> > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
> > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about
> 95%
> > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
> > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob]

Moon Shyne wrote:
>>-------------------------
>>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
>>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
>>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
>>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
>>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
>>be with each parent 50-50.
>>
>>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
>>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
>>legal standing" as a father.
>
>
> It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for this
> particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the mother has
> sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education, religion
> and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody situation
> for that particular family.

Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.


> I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization for all
> fathers, all children, all families.

Yes, that's exactly what they do. The SCOTUS decisions are used for
sweeping generalized prescient by every other court in the USA. A
million fathers and a million children will be hurt.





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[Bob]

Moon Shyne wrote:
>>-------------------------
>>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
>>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
>>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
>>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
>>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
>>be with each parent 50-50.
>>
>>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
>>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
>>legal standing" as a father.
>
>
> It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for this
> particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the mother has
> sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education, religion
> and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody situation
> for that particular family.

Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.


> I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization for all
> fathers, all children, all families.

Yes, that's exactly what they do. The SCOTUS decisions are used for
sweeping generalized prescient by every other court in the USA. A
million fathers and a million children will be hurt.





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[Bob]

Moon Shyne wrote:
>>-------------------------
>>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
>>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because the
>>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
>>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
>>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid should
>>be with each parent 50-50.
>>
>>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically says
>>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
>>legal standing" as a father.
>
>
> It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for this
> particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the mother has
> sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education, religion
> and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody situation
> for that particular family.

Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.


> I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization for all
> fathers, all children, all families.

Yes, that's exactly what they do. The SCOTUS decisions are used for
sweeping generalized prescient by every other court in the USA. A
million fathers and a million children will be hurt.





--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

[P.Fritz]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Moon Shyne wrote:
> >>-------------------------
> >>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> >>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> >>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> >>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> >>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> >>be with each parent 50-50.
> >>
> >>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> >>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> >>legal standing" as a father.
> >
> >
> > It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions
for this
> > particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the
mother has
> > sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> > and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> > for that particular family.
>
> Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
> always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
> decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
> rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.

Actually, it set NO precendent.....it was political sidestepping by the
leftist on the bench


>
>
> > I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization
for all
> > fathers, all children, all families.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what they do. The SCOTUS decisions are used for
> sweeping generalized prescient by every other court in the USA. A
> million fathers and a million children will be hurt.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> When did we divide into sides?
>
> "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
> on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
> President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
>
>
>

[P.Fritz]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Moon Shyne wrote:
> >>-------------------------
> >>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> >>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> >>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> >>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> >>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> >>be with each parent 50-50.
> >>
> >>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> >>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> >>legal standing" as a father.
> >
> >
> > It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions
for this
> > particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the
mother has
> > sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> > and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> > for that particular family.
>
> Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
> always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
> decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
> rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.

Actually, it set NO precendent.....it was political sidestepping by the
leftist on the bench


>
>
> > I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization
for all
> > fathers, all children, all families.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what they do. The SCOTUS decisions are used for
> sweeping generalized prescient by every other court in the USA. A
> million fathers and a million children will be hurt.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> When did we divide into sides?
>
> "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
> on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
> President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
>
>
>

[P.Fritz]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Moon Shyne wrote:
> >>-------------------------
> >>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> >>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> >>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> >>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> >>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> >>be with each parent 50-50.
> >>
> >>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> >>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> >>legal standing" as a father.
> >
> >
> > It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions
for this
> > particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the
mother has
> > sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> > and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> > for that particular family.
>
> Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
> always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
> decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
> rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.

Actually, it set NO precendent.....it was political sidestepping by the
leftist on the bench


>
>
> > I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization
for all
> > fathers, all children, all families.
>
> Yes, that's exactly what they do. The SCOTUS decisions are used for
> sweeping generalized prescient by every other court in the USA. A
> million fathers and a million children will be hurt.
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> When did we divide into sides?
>
> "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
> on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
> President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
>
>
>

[Chris]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > > Supreme
> > > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was
told"
> > > ..you
> > > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect.
Hence, he
> > > > lost his case.
> > >
> > > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> > Supreme
> > > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> > ruling
> > > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> > technicality,
> > > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> > >
> > > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> > lawsuit,
> > > no ruling.
> > -------------------------
> > I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> > determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> > court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> > non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> > mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> > be with each parent 50-50.
> >
> > I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> > dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> > legal standing" as a father.
>
> It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for
this
> particular child in respect to education or religion -

Uhuh. And also for the next "particular father", and the next particular
father and the next particular father .............................

> and since the mother has
> sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> for that particular family.
>
> I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization
for all
> fathers, all children, all families.

I'm sure you are.

>
> >
> > ~AZ~
> >
> > >
> > > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the
basic
> > > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this
case
> > > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having
about
> > 95%
> > > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who
live in
> > > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > > Supreme
> > > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was
told"
> > > ..you
> > > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect.
Hence, he
> > > > lost his case.
> > >
> > > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> > Supreme
> > > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> > ruling
> > > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> > technicality,
> > > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> > >
> > > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> > lawsuit,
> > > no ruling.
> > -------------------------
> > I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> > determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> > court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> > non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> > mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> > be with each parent 50-50.
> >
> > I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> > dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> > legal standing" as a father.
>
> It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for
this
> particular child in respect to education or religion -

Uhuh. And also for the next "particular father", and the next particular
father and the next particular father .............................

> and since the mother has
> sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> for that particular family.
>
> I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization
for all
> fathers, all children, all families.

I'm sure you are.

>
> >
> > ~AZ~
> >
> > >
> > > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the
basic
> > > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this
case
> > > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having
about
> > 95%
> > > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who
live in
> > > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Chris]

"Moon Shyne" > wrote in message
...
>
> "AZ Astrea" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bob Whiteside" > wrote in message
> > k.net...
> > >
> > > "Dusty" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > ..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
> > > Supreme
> > > > Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was
told"
> > > ..you
> > > > don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect.
Hence, he
> > > > lost his case.
> > >
> > > What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the
> > Supreme
> > > Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have
"standing."
> > > Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a
lawsuit
> > > on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal
> > ruling
> > > based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
> > > although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a
> > technicality,
> > > the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.
> > >
> > > "Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the
lawsuit
> > > can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No
> > lawsuit,
> > > no ruling.
> > -------------------------
> > I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> > determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> > court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> > non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> > mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> > be with each parent 50-50.
> >
> > I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> > dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> > legal standing" as a father.
>
> It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions for
this
> particular child in respect to education or religion -

Uhuh. And also for the next "particular father", and the next particular
father and the next particular father .............................

> and since the mother has
> sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> for that particular family.
>
> I'm fairly certain the court's ruling was not a sweeping generalization
for all
> fathers, all children, all families.

I'm sure you are.

>
> >
> > ~AZ~
> >
> > >
> > > The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the
basic
> > > legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this
case
> > > to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
> > > fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having
about
> > 95%
> > > of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who
live in
> > > the west call it the 9th Circus Court.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Moon Shyne wrote:
> >>-------------------------
> >>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> >>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> >>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> >>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> >>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> >>be with each parent 50-50.
> >>
> >>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> >>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> >>legal standing" as a father.
> >
> >
> > It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions
for this
> > particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the
mother has
> > sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> > and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> > for that particular family.
>
> Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
> always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
> decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
> rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.

How will this decision hurt a million children?

The decision upheld the California state law to start the school day with a
patriotic ceremony. The decision upheld the value of the parent-child
relationship. The decision upheld both parents rights to discuss their
religious beliefs with their children. The decision upheld the joint
custody primary parent's right to have veto power if the parents do not
agree.

What is new in this decision is the parent without veto power cannot dictate
what a third party says in front of his child and, in effect, have veto
power over a decision already made by the other parent to allow the child to
hear what is heard.

Chief Justice Rehnquist signaled how he will decide the pledge issue if it
comes up again. His opinion says the words "under God" in the pledge is a
patriotic expression to the flag and the nation, not a religious expression.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Moon Shyne wrote:
> >>-------------------------
> >>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> >>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> >>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> >>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> >>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> >>be with each parent 50-50.
> >>
> >>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> >>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> >>legal standing" as a father.
> >
> >
> > It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions
for this
> > particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the
mother has
> > sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> > and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> > for that particular family.
>
> Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
> always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
> decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
> rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.

How will this decision hurt a million children?

The decision upheld the California state law to start the school day with a
patriotic ceremony. The decision upheld the value of the parent-child
relationship. The decision upheld both parents rights to discuss their
religious beliefs with their children. The decision upheld the joint
custody primary parent's right to have veto power if the parents do not
agree.

What is new in this decision is the parent without veto power cannot dictate
what a third party says in front of his child and, in effect, have veto
power over a decision already made by the other parent to allow the child to
hear what is heard.

Chief Justice Rehnquist signaled how he will decide the pledge issue if it
comes up again. His opinion says the words "under God" in the pledge is a
patriotic expression to the flag and the nation, not a religious expression.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Moon Shyne wrote:
> >>-------------------------
> >>I think that is the problem. How can a father not have standing to
> >>determine what religion his kid is exposed to? I know, I know, because
the
> >>court gave primary custody to the mom effectively making the dad a
> >>non-entity. But a father should have as much say in these things as a
> >>mother regardless of who the kid lives with more and actually the kid
should
> >>be with each parent 50-50.
> >>
> >>I agree with others that this is very bad for ncps/dads. It basically
says
> >>dads have no say in anything to do with raising the kids. They "have no
> >>legal standing" as a father.
> >
> >
> > It says this particular father has no legal standing to make decisions
for this
> > particular child in respect to education or religion - and since the
mother has
> > sole legal custody, which IS the decision making right for education,
religion
> > and medical care, the court's ruling was consistant with the custody
situation
> > for that particular family.
>
> Yes, SCOTUS always decides *particular* cases, and their decisions are
> always prescient for thousands of other cases over the next several
> decades. This case set a HORRIBLE prescient in denying fathers legal
> rights. It will be used to hurt a million children.

How will this decision hurt a million children?

The decision upheld the California state law to start the school day with a
patriotic ceremony. The decision upheld the value of the parent-child
relationship. The decision upheld both parents rights to discuss their
religious beliefs with their children. The decision upheld the joint
custody primary parent's right to have veto power if the parents do not
agree.

What is new in this decision is the parent without veto power cannot dictate
what a third party says in front of his child and, in effect, have veto
power over a decision already made by the other parent to allow the child to
hear what is heard.

Chief Justice Rehnquist signaled how he will decide the pledge issue if it
comes up again. His opinion says the words "under God" in the pledge is a
patriotic expression to the flag and the nation, not a religious expression.

[Bob]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
> How will this decision hurt a million children?

By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

[Bob]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
> How will this decision hurt a million children?

By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

[Bob]

Bob Whiteside wrote:
> How will this decision hurt a million children?

By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

Bob



--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/


























[Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]

[P.Fritz]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > How will this decision hurt a million children?
>
> By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

Hello? Anybody home? There was no precendent set. The case was dismissed
for lack of standing. The plaintiff did NOT bring a 'standing' case to the
SCOTUS, he brought a 'religous seperation' case.


>
> Bob
>
>
>
> --
>
> When did we divide into sides?
>
> "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
> on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
> President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
> posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
>
>

[P.Fritz]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > How will this decision hurt a million children?
>
> By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

Hello? Anybody home? There was no precendent set. The case was dismissed
for lack of standing. The plaintiff did NOT bring a 'standing' case to the
SCOTUS, he brought a 'religous seperation' case.


>
> Bob
>
>
>
> --
>
> When did we divide into sides?
>
> "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
> on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
> President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
> posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
>
>

[P.Fritz]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > How will this decision hurt a million children?
>
> By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

Hello? Anybody home? There was no precendent set. The case was dismissed
for lack of standing. The plaintiff did NOT bring a 'standing' case to the
SCOTUS, he brought a 'religous seperation' case.


>
> Bob
>
>
>
> --
>
> When did we divide into sides?
>
> "As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
> on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
> President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Bob does not advocate any illegal, seditious, or immoral acts. All
> posts are for discussion, rhetorical, or humorous purposes only.]
>
>

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > How will this decision hurt a million children?
>
> By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

See: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03slipopinion.html

The syllabus explains the case and the decision. It's case number 02-1624.
The case has nothing to do with the father's access or care. The SC was 8-0
in concurring to reverse the 9th Circus Court decision to overturn the state
trial court with only a couple of prior case interpretation concerns being
addressed about how the decision was crafted.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > How will this decision hurt a million children?
>
> By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

See: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03slipopinion.html

The syllabus explains the case and the decision. It's case number 02-1624.
The case has nothing to do with the father's access or care. The SC was 8-0
in concurring to reverse the 9th Circus Court decision to overturn the state
trial court with only a couple of prior case interpretation concerns being
addressed about how the decision was crafted.

[Bob Whiteside]

"Bob" > wrote in message
...
> Bob Whiteside wrote:
> > How will this decision hurt a million children?
>
> By setting a legal precedent that denies their fathers access and care.

See: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/03slipopinion.html

The syllabus explains the case and the decision. It's case number 02-1624.
The case has nothing to do with the father's access or care. The SC was 8-0
in concurring to reverse the 9th Circus Court decision to overturn the state
trial court with only a couple of prior case interpretation concerns being
addressed about how the decision was crafted.