Supreme Court won't rule on "Under God."

[javasaurus]

Most of you probably have heard that the Supreme Court chose not to hear the case of "under God." The reason cited is that the man bringing the suit didn't have legal grounds to do so -- he wasn't the legal guardian of his daughter, and so couldn't bring forth a suit regarding her well-being.

It may seem that a court ruling would have been preferable, but consider the following:

First, the ruling may have been in favor of "under God" -- and then you'd be stuck with it for about twenty years before it even came up again.

Second, if the ruling had been against "under God" then Congress would have written a Constitutional Amendment to include the words (and who knows what else). Then the Supreme Court couldn't do squat about it.

Third (and probably most important, really), if the case had been heard, regardless of the outcome, it would provide precedence, greatly increasing the legal power of non-custodial parents, and I'm sure there are non-custodial parents out there that would love to take advantage.

Comments

Re: there wouldn't have been an amendment...

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

if either side can't get things as simple as ERA, No Flag Burning, or No Gay Marriage to even begin to reach the point of getting state approval (much less the 2/3rds of each house and the president's signature), then with the near 50/50 split between the red and the blue right now NO amendment will ever be passed. There are too many states who don't even bother with the pledge as a requirement that would just vote no and go "give us a break, we have better things to worry about...".

As for your third point, well...that's a damn good point. It could REALLY affect things when it comes to adopted children when the parents are still alive, allowing such parents to greatly interfere with the adoptive parents ability to raise the children. either the ties are legally there, or they aren't, and in that sense, it was an important decision.

The difficulty in its applicability in this case was that though the father hadn't proved legitimate custody at the time of filing the original suit (hence, the dismissal), he still could win such custody in the very near future. And if he did so, would or should the california courts do anything to push thier original decisions through again?