Quote:
Originally posted by 12clicks
this just isn't true. you're basically saying that he tricked his way infront of the supreme court. striking down "under god" from the pledge has NOTHING to do with child custody. Thinking it does just shows how misguided this clown is.
|
This case is rooted in Child custody issues. Look at the history of the case.
a) Newdow and mother are seperated.
b) Newdow is an atheist, the Mom a born again Christian
c) Newdow doesnt want his daughter saying the pledge because he believes its supporting religion.
d) Mom says sorry your screwed Newdow because in California sole custody means I get to make the call here on this matter.
e) Newdow cannot get what he wants because the Child custody laws in California bar him. Newdow decides to pursue the constitutional issue because it would make the child custody law unconstitional. The child custody law is what is preventing him from achieving what he wants.
f) Newdow gets review of the case by the 9th COA under the issue that 1) He as a father gets the right to decide religion for his child (lots of case law on that) 2) the pledge requirement violated his constitutional right to decide religion for his child.
He didnt trick the court, what he did was he needed to make the issue revolve around the pledge because of the child custody laws in California prevented him from having a decision in his childs upbringing.
Newdow definitely makes an unsympathetic plaintiff. Atheists as a whole arent highly regarded in American society.