1 posted on
10/21/2003 8:24:47 PM PDT by
ranair34
To: ranair34
Thanks for posting this -- wonder why this wasn't brought out before -- sounds like someone has been doing some digging! What a lowlife that guy is!
2 posted on
10/21/2003 8:27:36 PM PDT by
PhiKapMom
(AOII Mom -- Don't forget to Visit/donate at http://www.georgewbush.com)
To: ranair34
Humm. I assume this is true, because there would be huge damages if it weren't.
California judges are a breed of their own. I wonder what will happen next.
3 posted on
10/21/2003 8:29:52 PM PDT by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: ranair34
The case should **NOT** be dismissed, as someone else will simply file a similar one.
No, the case should be ruled against so that the issue will become forever dead.
4 posted on
10/21/2003 8:31:58 PM PDT by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: ranair34
I think they have joint custody now.
6 posted on
10/21/2003 8:36:04 PM PDT by
TheAngryClam
(Don't blame me, I voted for McClintock.)
To: ranair34; PhiKapMom
The daughter is against the lawsuit her non-custodial father filed and she has repeatedly stated her opinion many times.
Let SCOTUS put this to rest, once and hopefully, for all time.
8 posted on
10/21/2003 8:37:08 PM PDT by
onyx
To: ranair34
I saw this nutjob on H&C last week. The guy's a total nutjob. He'd be locked up if we still had our snake pits in working order.
He wants a seperation of church and state, I want to live outside the asylum.
Maybe I should sue him on behalf of my fictional daughter?
I mean, there aren't any snake pits anymore, so what do I have to lose?
9 posted on
10/21/2003 8:39:02 PM PDT by
Duke Nukum
([T]he only true mystery is that our very lives are governed by dead people.)
To: ranair34
11 posted on
10/21/2003 8:44:16 PM PDT by
ElkGroveDan
(Fighting for Freedom and Having Fun)
To: ranair34
Putting the shoe on the other foot - are you saying that non-custodial parents should have no say in how their children are raised?
To: ranair34
Atheist Michael Newdow lied to the court in order to bring a case to declare the Pledge of Allegiance illegal. When this is all over with, can we push to make sure this guy is charged with perjury? Please? Pretty please?
14 posted on
10/21/2003 8:47:34 PM PDT by
Prime Choice
(---] Stay the course -- Bush 2004 [---)
To: ranair34
Mr. Newlowlife.
16 posted on
10/21/2003 8:51:18 PM PDT by
OLDCU
To: ranair34
Paternity rights and and obligations are not dependent on marriage. Did he claim in the case that they were married? It seems irrelevant.
17 posted on
10/21/2003 8:52:32 PM PDT by
Hugin
To: ranair34
...An atheist lied? Fancy that!
To: ranair34
Is it possible she is a "common law" wife?
20 posted on
10/21/2003 8:58:14 PM PDT by
Pan_Yans Wife
(You may forget the one with whom you have laughed, but never the one with whom you have wept.)
To: ranair34
If I were Newdow, I'd repent. This man will go down as the devil incarnate..
But then, maybe he is.
21 posted on
10/21/2003 9:16:44 PM PDT by
Greenpees
(Coulda Shoulda Woulda)
To: ranair34
Michael Newdow is a "Red Diaper Baby" from a long line of Red Diaper Babies. The descendants of Eastern Europeans that immigrated to the U.S. before the Bolshevik, Russian revolution in 1917. Most of them came from Russia to America from 1900 until 1918. They missed out on the communist revolution in Russia and tried to encourage one in the USA for 70 years. Since the economic theory of Marxism has been discredited, the only ideology left for them to cling to is atheism. Newdow is on a "Jihad" for no God at all.
23 posted on
10/21/2003 9:27:33 PM PDT by
elbucko
To: ranair34
the words "unde rGod," inserted by Congress in 1954 You know, I'm not that fond of those particular words, myself.
24 posted on
10/21/2003 9:29:19 PM PDT by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: ranair34
In her first public comment since the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Newdow that the words "unde rGod," inserted by Congress in 1954, make the pledge an unconstitutional endorsement of religion,The U.S. Constitution doesn't forbid an endorsement of religion - it forbids an establishment of religion.
30 posted on
10/21/2003 9:57:14 PM PDT by
usadave
To: ranair34
He's her father so being married to the mother means exactly nothing.
34 posted on
10/21/2003 10:33:16 PM PDT by
Az Joe
To: ranair34
Another Clintoon legacy, lying to the court...for personal gain...
To: ranair34
...Courts can only hear cases in which there is an injured party, and if there is no injury there is no grounds for a case...True enough, but...
1. Newdow has standing as a parent to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the reiligious education of his daughter. Doe v. Madison, 1999 and others.
2. The case is Michael Newdow vs. U.S. Congress, not Newdow's daughter vs. U.S. Congress.
The fact that his daughter and his daughter's mother claim no injury does not mean that Newdow cannot claim injury to his daughter.
Newdow claims his daughter was "injured" simply by being exposed to the pledge in a state-run school. He doesn't claim that his daughter doesn't want to say the pledge.
To illustrate, let's say that the school was teaching sex education in the elementary school, and that Newdow's daughter and his daughter's mother both had no problem with that. Newdow could still claim that the sex education "injured" his daughter. He has the right to say that in his opinion, his daughter is being injured.
The issues of standing and injury have all been addressed. Newdow absolutely has the right to file this lawsuit.
When someone says "the daughter's not complaining" therefore Newdow lied when he says his daughter was "injured" don't understand that, in Newdow's opinion, his daughter is "injured" whether she says so or not, therefore he did not lie.
you can read the facts of the case here:
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/conlaw/newdowus62602opn.pdf
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson