SCOTUS tells Newdow to piss off

[DinoDoc]

He doesn't have custody of the kid.

[Timexwatch]

He does have custody, just not a majority of the time. IIRC from his Scarbourough (Or Hardball?) interview tonight, he gets the kid 10 days a month.

[Ted Striker]

SCROTUM

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He doesn't have custody of the kid.

and?

He is fit enough to pay the bills, but he is not fit enough to have any say whatsoever in the childs life, or the laws that shape the society that she grows up in?

[The Mad Monk]

The mother has no say if the father drags them through the courts?

[Imran Siddiqui]

He is fit enough to pay the bills, but he is not fit enough to have any say whatsoever in the childs life, or the laws that shape the society that she grows up in?

What actual, concrete injury does the father suffer from this? That is after all the central question in standing issues. I see none. What, he doesn't get to raise his kids in the manner he sees fit? Does that mean evolution cannot be taught in classrooms anymore because some idiot will say that stops him from raising his kids in his manner?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
The mother has no say if the father drags them through the courts?

Was the child required to be there?

If she was, count that against the father's time. Or the mother could find someone to argue why it should not be brought. You know, an interested party. Isn't the father at least as interested as the state? Can mothers successfully argue the state has no say in their childrens' welfare?

btw, why bad father, good mother? What if the custodian was a father and the mother was the libertarian 'freak'.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

He is fit enough to pay the bills, but he is not fit enough to have any say whatsoever in the childs life, or the laws that shape the society that she grows up in?

What actual, concrete injury does the father suffer from this?

What actual, concrete injury does any parent suffer from this? Maybe a say in the society in which their progeny are reared, just for ****s and giggles.

That is after all the central question in standing issues. I see none. What, he doesn't get to raise his kids in the manner he sees fit? Does that mean evolution cannot be taught in classrooms anymore because some idiot will say that stops him from raising his kids in his manner?

He should be as free to raise the argument on its merits as any other parent, and not be dismissed for being a non-custodial, walking-wallet with zero standing anywhere as far as his chidren are concerned, except for the monthly cheque thankyouverymuchnow****offandleaveusalone.

[The Mad Monk]

I believe the girl has said that she never cared about the matter.

I have the distinct impression that he is using her as a soapbox.

[notyoueither]

And the difference to the validity of his POV if he lived in the house would be? It would be that juniors POV mattered ****. Parents argue for their children. Why should not a non-custodial parent be able to mount an argument that should be addressed on its merits about the circumstances of the society his or her child is brought up in?

Would a man living in Detroit in 1952 have no standing over his child in Alabama trying to go to a school?

[Berzerker]

In his minority opinion, Rehnquist wrote, "To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance."

Newdow wasn't arguing against a "patriotic ceremony" and it isn't "willingly" participated in, he was arguing against state-created coercion to compel his kid to affirm a belief in someone's "god". The same thing happened in ancient Rome when authorities told Christians they can practice their religion but must bow to the Roman gods. The only difference was Christians were often executed then whereas today children may be ostracised by classmates and punished indirectly by "patriotic" or religious teachers. And the fact Rehnquist can't see the inherent coercion involved is either the result of ideological blinders, political convenience, or he's dumb as a stump.

Yes Mr Newdow, we're going to take your money and use it to indoctrinate your kid into our religion and coerce her to affirm a belief in our god. Sheesh! How is this different from inquisitors "asking" people to worship Jesus? The severity of potential punishment... But both still employ coercion...

For those who think he or other parents in his position can just send their kids to a different school, fine, stop taxing these people to pay for public schools. Don't force people who don't believe in your god to pay for the promotion of your religious beliefs to their children.

The state has no place affirming the existence of a diety.

Why not? That would mean the Declaration of Independence is unconstitutional. The establishment clause was not meant to eliminate religion from the state, just protect non-believers from having to affirm or support those beliefs. There is a difference between politician Joe telling me God exists and Joe telling me to repeat after him or risk getting in trouble with the state.

What actual, concrete injury does the father suffer from this? That is after all the central question in standing issues. I see none. What, he doesn't get to raise his kids in the manner he sees fit? Does that mean evolution cannot be taught in classrooms anymore because some idiot will say that stops him from raising his kids in his manner?

If the school "asks" his kid to affirm a belief in evolution as opposed to creation, yes. Parents have a natural right to raise their kids with the parent's spiritual or religious (or the lack thereof) views. The converse of Newdow's situation is the school "asking" a Christian's child to say "there is no god". Removing that right makes the parent suffer and every Christian parent in the country would understand that if this was a communist state where people couldn't see to the religious upbringing of their kids.

Besides, schools aren't even mentioned in the Constitution so it takes quite an imagination to conclude Congress can have schools "ask" children to recite a pledge. Also, in 1943 it was one of the Christian sects that objected to the then compulsory pledge and the SCOTUS ruled in their favor. So what's the difference? It's "voluntary" now? Hardly!

I believe the girl has said that she never cared about the matter.

This is about parental rights.

I have the distinct impression that he is using her as a soapbox.

Perhaps, but he's no different than the people who got "under God" into the pledge... Why do people want the pledge? Is it because they aren't providing for their own kid's religious upbringing at home and need the state to do it for them at school? Of course not, it's because they want your kids raised with their religious views and they'd rather hide behind the state to accomplish this than risk their own necks. These people are telling the rest of us we are bad parents and need them and their state to raise our kids properly.

[Kuciwalker]

*points to his original post*

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

So, now someone with standing will bring a suit.

We'll see. Since before this case you didn't have many 15 year olds petition the courts to get it removed, I wonder if it'll happen anytime soon.

I'm sure there are athiest groups out there who agree with the intial suit and who are willing to finiance a second go.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by notyoueither
and?

That means he lacks the right to use his daughter as a fig leaf to give him standing to sue over something he otherwise couldn't.

[JohnT]

Perhaps the child doesn't feel like being a pawn in her dad's fight against his ideological boogy-man?

Given that he didn't even see fit to stay around to watch her grow up, this man is just a whiny bastard who uses his kids, as he pleases, for his own ends, with their wishes not counting in the slightest. If he actually gave a **** about her well-being, he wouldn't have left her.