The Newdow 'Pledge' Supreme Court Case

Home

I'm sure everyone knows by now that the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Newdow's petition to have the words "under God" stricken from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I'm sure that everyone also knows that the reason had nothing to do with the merits of the case, the court instead decided that Newdow didn't have standing to file the case.

I think the justices of the Supreme Court are shirking their duties here. I don't even particularly care whether they decide that having "under God" in the pledge is constitutional or not, I just want them to stand up and decide.

Since when did the court let standing get in the way of making a decision it wanted to make? We don't have to look back any further than Bush v. Gore in 2000 to see that they don't let it get in the way. There is absolutely no legal way, no matter how twisted the language, that Bush had standing to file the case. And yet... Here we are.

So why shouldn't we know whether "under God" in unconstitutional? It's not like the justices were afraid of altering some sacred oath; the pledge is constantly under revision and the words "under God" were added only 50 -- exactly 50 years ago.

I honestly don't know why they would shy away from this. They have lifetime appointments after all. But we'd better not have any more extra-legal presidential appointments.

Supreme Court | U.S. Law | United States

Perversely Relieved
Submitted by poot (not verified) on 15 June, 2004 - 11:26am.

I agree with you completely (and I think the Court's jurisprudence demands my agreement) that standing is more or less pretextual once you get up to the Supreme Court.

However, I for one am perversely relieved that the majority opinion didn't discuss the merits of the case. Newdow would have lost, and the principle of stare decisis would have stymied future Courts from reconsidering the issue and possibly ruling in his successor's favor.

As it stands now, a future Court doesn't have a merit-based precedent hanging over its head. That makes their job just a little bit easier.

Of course, I consider it highly unlikely that any Court in the near future will have 5 justices willing to take the plunge. Right now we've got 3 on the record against Newdow, and while Scalia might have voted with the majority in this case, I think it's pretty clear he'd be with the concurrence were the issue actually tried.