« Berry Picking Time | Main | Why? »
June 14, 2004
Correct For Once
The US Supremes, in an 8-0 ruling, have dismissed the Pledge of Allegiance case on procedural grounds.
The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.
Frankly I was surprised the case got that far. A noncustodial parent normally doesn't have standing to sue on behalf of a child.
A long-standing tenet of the law that comes in right handy when an upper-level court wants to sidestep a controversial issue, a cynic would say. But it also means that they avoided making a ill-considered ruling on the real issue of the case that would in turn had the unintended consequence of creating the right of a noncustodial parent to sue on behalf of a child.
It's those unintended consequences that'll bite you in the ass every time.
Posted by Rita at June 14, 2004 09:55 AM
Comments
What I found interesting, from a legal analysis point of view, was Justice Thomas's concurring opinion (at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624). His analysis of the Establishment Clause makes for some thought-provoking reading, I think.
Posted by: Tony at June 14, 2004 03:42 PM
Interesting indeed, as is the main opinion. I think the Establishment Clause has been stretched way beyond what it actually covers...a prohibition against the establishment of a state religion.
Posted by: rita at June 15, 2004 07:30 AM
What, you mean the three-part Lemon v. Kurtzman (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602) framework _isn't_ a model of clarity? *snort*
Posted by: Tony at June 15, 2004 10:19 AM