pledge (duck)

[earl maltz]

The difference is that in the cited cases the parents had the legal right
to control their children's environment.  I believe Newdow was argued on
the theory that he was the noncustodial parent (although I have read that
he now claims otherwise).  I can see NO justification for allowing him
standing.  Indeed, this whole case is a good argument for the English rule
on attorney's fees.  It might discourage vanity cases like this.

At 11:33 AM 6/14/2004 -0500, Louise Weinberg wrote:
>Dear David,
>         Yes, frankly I am relieved.  The only honest alternative would 
>have been a ruling in favor of the atheist, a firestorm, and a bill for a 
>constitutional amendment; an accommodation would not have been this bad, 
>but would be a real departure ~ as far as I understand the situation.  But 
>hard cases make bad (standing) law.  Of course a parent should have had 
>standing.  Analogies from Meyer, Pierce, whatever.   I think.
>Louise
>
>
>
>
>At 09:40 AM 6/14/04, David Cruz wrote:
>
>>The Washington Post is reporting that all eight of the Justices who
>>participated agreed that Newdow did not have standing.
>>
>>David B. Cruz
>>Professor of Law
>>University of Southern California Law School
>>Los Angeles, CA 90089-0071
>>U.S.A.
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>