Election year side-step or legitimate reason?
 

From MSNBC: Court dismisses pledge suit

Justices sidestep church-state issue in tossing atheist's case

I'm guessing they didn't want to end up with a 4-4 tie.

The circumstances under which the case was brought (by a non-custodial parent of a minor in the minor's name) were questionable from the outset. The Supremes don't tend to build upon a shaky foundation, so they tossed the original decision, which was similarly shaky based upon the inherent right to bring suit on the part of the father of the child.

Oh...and they didn't want to end up in a 4-4 tie.

The following article expresses my opinion on this issue much better than I could type it, starting where it says, "One may wonder, are those two words genuinely divisive?" and ending with "So, the Pledge as it currently reads is divisive and it is use in a divisive manner. " That says it all.


http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...gov_pledge.htm


I didn't realize that Syc had already started a thread on this...so how do I get rid of the thread I started? (Do I have to get UT to do that?)

Sidhe

Well, since the 'under God' was tacked on the the 50's during the heydey of the Cold War, it is definitely political in nature. If it had been part of the original pledge, it might have had a firmer standing.

Yes the court sidestepped the issue, but their reason for doing so was valid. When I took a class in Constitutional law, my professor did go over cases where the court might have stretched their authority, like striking down the Massachusetts gag law on birth control advice.

But giving their blessing to a non-custodial parent having that kind of standing would cause a huge ripple effect in family law. It will be interesting to see what will happen when the next case comes up.

Newdow was on Hannity's radio show today and said that he had friends/acquaintances/strangers offering their kids for the next try.