on the Pledge of Allegiance case originally brought by Michael Newdow. The assertion he was making was that adding the words “one nation under god” was tantamount to establishment. The Court didn’t actually rule on the issue, however, saying only that Newdow didn’t have standing to represent his daughter, of whom he only has partial custody.
Michael Boyle's weblog
Michael says
This comment was left:
Dang, I wanted to rant about how lame the Court was for skirting the Pledge issue, but comments weren’t enabled. Curses, foiled again.
Posted by Hass at June 14, 2004 10:42 PM
Hass says
No problem, Michael…
I LOVE this quote ffrom the article you link to, by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens… “When hard questions of domestic relations (Hass- that’s mother/father, not USA/world) are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law.”
Yes, heaven forbid the Supreme Court should resolve a question of law. Ha!
Hey, I’m catching an error message during comment preview.
Michael says
Aw man I don’t know what’s up with that. I may be able to check soon.
Anyhow what bugged me the most was that the media punted on their headlines for a long time, suggesting that they made a substantive decision instead of punting on the whole question. Yahoo was the worst for that.