I had a feeling the Supreme Court would kick the case for reasons of standing. It's too bad they didn't rule on the constitutional issue involved, but the decision they handed down today seems to be the technically correct one.

The story.

Oh, "thank God". The apocalypse is postponed.

I wonder if our own resident "judge" will ever make it to the Supreme Court.....

Besides, the court already has ruled that kids can't be compelled to say the pledge at all if it conflicts with their or their parents' beliefs (I forget the name of the case, but it's from the 1960s and hasn't been challenged to my knowledge).

Trouble is, the parent in this case didn't want to get just his kid out of saying the pledge. He wanted to get all the kids out of it just because he objected. That's overreaching, imposing his values on other parents and their kids, and I don't see how the court could have ruled in his favor even if he'd had standing. (To me, he's no different from parents who want the Day of Silence banned from public schools because it "promotes homosexuality" even though their kids can opt out of it if they object. Or who want sex education banned for the same reason. "I'm offended, so nobody can." Uh, guess again.)

The court has ruled against school-sponsored prayer because it's clearly establishment of religion (which favors one religion over others and hinders the free exercise of the others). It also has upheld equal-access laws and other measures protecting free exercise of religion. The balance between the two sides of the First Amendment is working, whether the religious right likes it or not.

[ June 14, 2004, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: danimal ]

Danimal, I think you are referring to West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette from 1943. I remember having to study it for my American Consititutional Development course. This case was initiated by Jehovah's witnesses who do not want to say the pledge of allegance. It's the first major successful case where the power of the state to limit the actions of the individual was overturned for violating the equal protection clause. In simple terms, if something doesn't hurt you or others, the state cannot do anything about it.

Barnette has been cited in almost every possible social debate before the Supreme Court since as justification on both sides of the issue. Some we are familiar with: Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Roe v Wade, and Lawrence v Texas.

Thanks for the background, BPT!