The Supreme Court Wimps Out
Jun. 14th, 2004 04:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
omorkaAfter all that sound and fury, the SCotUS overturned the 9th Circuit Court's decision - not because the phrase "under God" in the pledge is really constitutional, but because Newdow doesn't have the right to sue, according to the Supes.
Given that Justice O'Connor seems to have been on the side of "God," we'd've probably lost if they'd actually voted on it, anyway. I suppose I should be thankful for sour grapes. This way, someone who has better standing can sue on it again, preferably under a less frighteningly conservative court (please, Kerry, we can't take four more years of this asshat, and we all know he'd pack the court with Pickerings).
It does seem like a strike against fathers' rights, though. I wonder if any of the groups who are legal advocates for non-custodial fathers will take this up.
Given that Justice O'Connor seems to have been on the side of "God," we'd've probably lost if they'd actually voted on it, anyway. I suppose I should be thankful for sour grapes. This way, someone who has better standing can sue on it again, preferably under a less frighteningly conservative court (please, Kerry, we can't take four more years of this asshat, and we all know he'd pack the court with Pickerings).
It does seem like a strike against fathers' rights, though. I wonder if any of the groups who are legal advocates for non-custodial fathers will take this up.
