15 June 2004


Here's a nice, level-headed assessment of the Pledge of Allegiance case (via Slate). I remember from the earliest reports prior to the case that the biggest obstacle would be for Michael Newdow to prove that he had parental rights to present the charges. Yesterday the court decided that he did not.

When I read the news, I thought that the Monday's reporters were a little quick to label the Supreme Court as diffident, and Dahlia Lithwick in the Slate article says as much. Ms. Lithwick gave a reasonable summary of the oral arguments back in March. Newdow's case could have won--and should have won if he were the legal guardian of his daughter.

I remember when the case first appeared. I feel that "god" should be removed from every aspect of politics, but when I heard that some troublemaker was trying to take it to the Supreme Court I was skeptical ... that he was just a troublemaker. Then I heard his argument and appreciated his logic. Newdow wasn't a crackpot. He was someone who felt the same and had the impetus to follow through.

It's a shame it didn't work out, but it was a nice try.

[ posted by sstrader on 15 June 2004 at 9:43:09 PM in Culture & Society ]