Mmmm... taste the misleading journalism goodness in this Associated Press article. The first paragraph reads: " The Supreme Court said Tuesday it will decide whether the Pledge of Allegiance recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state".
But you have to jump over several paragraphs of unrelated SCOTUS highlights before coming to this: "The court also said it will consider whether Newdow had the proper legal footing to bring the case.".
It was my understanding that the meat of the appeal will, in fact, rest on if a divorced parent, who at the time was not granted child-custody by the courts, can bring suit in the name of their child. Instead the opening paragraphs make it sound like a First Amendment Rumble in the Jungle is about to ensue. I doubt it. But hey, you never know.
(BTW - I changed my tribe.net name to falconred, so ya'll can friend me. If no one does, that's ok, I'll just go cry in the corner and listen to The Cure)
Posted by falconred at October 14, 2003 09:35 AM | TrackBackI am not sure that I follow your reasoning. The fact that the case deals with a divisive First Amendment issue is not questioned but whether the Court will hear the case or resolve the matter by abstention. The primary issue is not the parental rights of a divorced father. That is simply a test to help determine if the Court will hear the case. Either way, the First Amendment Rumble in the Jungle is underway.
Posted by: John at October 14, 2003 05:08 PMI guess what I meant to say was that I forsee them avoiding the First Amendment issue by saying the suit was not legal to begin with, thereby reversing the lower court decision without saying anything exciting.
Posted by: falconred at October 14, 2003 09:16 PMYeah, they could be that boring... but the precedent that the side-stepping would create is probably both undesirable and unlikely to come from the current court.
Posted by: Chicago1L at October 23, 2003 03:33 PM