NavyDave Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 WTF!!! The mom was shown on fox and friends stated she was christian (Sunday shcool teacher) and has full custody of her daughter. The daughter led her class in the pledge of allegiance and after the ruling told her mom that she will whisper under god so she wont break the law. The guy celebrates pass over, etc with his daughter when he gets visitation and the holidays coincides. So this a$$hole isnt an atheist apparently is jewish, doesnt like parts of the constitution and filed a lawsuit that cost the school district money for a publicity stunt. They will rebroacast it thru out the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 Sadly, this is the worst possible news to have broken. That the daughter is a Christian removes the "injured" party from the lawsuit. Without an injured party, the suit can't go forward and will be thrown out. If it gets thrown out before the Supreme Court can get it, then we'll have to go through this all over again in 5 years or whenever another father can convince a court that his child is injured by listening to others say Under God. I'm just rooting for the courts to move rapidly on this and make a judgement that ends this nonsense. But, do not be surprised if the active panel on the Ninth Circuit quickly moves to end this case altogther, vacating the ruling, but preserving future claims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 Here's a link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59002-2002Jul12.html Nothing about the dad being Jewish though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 15, 2002 Share Posted July 15, 2002 While you're right that you must have standing to bring a suit by, for example, actually suffering the "injury" that you claim in the suit, absence of that doesn't always extinguish the claim. The Supremes can sometimes agree to review cases without an injury if they believe that there's a compelling need to resolve a pressing legal issue. This could fall into that category given that this lawsuit was about legal principles to begin with no one was really injured in the traditional sense. However, given the conservative bent of the Supreme Court on these issues, they'll likely choose not to do this and simply let the 9th Circuit remove its foot from its mouth on its own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 15, 2002 Author Share Posted July 15, 2002 The point is he wanted to use his daughter for his cause and lied about her being emotionally suffering and ostracized. Unfortunately the Supreme Court isnt conservative enough if they were as well as the district court then there would be fewer instances of Judicial Activism and just interpretation of the constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted July 15, 2002 Author Share Posted July 15, 2002 While I'm all for Fathers rights, this one instance tells me that he should be laughed out of court especially after being found to be a liar at his daughters expense. I see no reason why Mom has to give up custody and it looks like she was smart enough to not marry this fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.