USSC reject POA case

[strandinthewind]

I believe the correct saying is "I wouldn't tough that with a 10 foot pole" Actually, if the father does not have standing to speak for his cild, then the Court correctly rejected the case without addressing the merits.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/06/14/sc....ap/index.html

Monday, June 14, 2004 Posted: 10:38 AM EDT (1438 GMT)

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court at least temporarily preserved the phrase "one nation, under God," in the Pledge of Allegiance Monday, ruling that a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath.

The procedural ruling did not directly address whether the pledge recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state.

The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughter's school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her.

The father, Michael Newdow, is in a protracted custody fight with the girl's mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the case.

The case is Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, case no. 02-1624.