Stevens creates a new prudential limitation on standing: "it is improper for the federal courts to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff¹s claimed standing." Even when he's suing in his own right, it must be in his own right as a father, and not as an ordinary citizen. Isn't the point that he shouldn't be recognized as capable of suing as a father if the state court's authoritative family law judgment is that the child should be left out of the lawsuit? If he's not suing as a father, and he's not a Flast-type taxpayer, he's just the usual ideologue who isn't allowed to sue, correct?
Ann "Nathan Oman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Stevens opinion explains why Neadow lacks standing to assert his > daughter's claim to be free of government sponsored religion. However, he > doesn't seem to address Neadow's personal right not have the state ineffect > attack his religious message to his daughter. Did I miss something here? (I > freely confess that there may be something in the springes of standing law > that I am not understanding.) It seems to me that Neadow had two theories of > standing and the Court in the Steven's opinion only addressed one of them. > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: "Marty Lederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2004 11:56:31 -0400 > >> The collection of concurrences on the merits are quite interesting. The >> Chief's opinion adopts the SG's argument -- darn-near-preposterous, IMHO (and >> that of Justice Thomas!) -- that the Pledge is OK in schools because "under >> God" is "not endorsement of any religion," but instead "a simple recognition >> of the fact [that] '[f]rom the time of our earliest history our peoples and >> our institutions have reflected the traditional concept that our Nation was >> founded on a fundamental belief in God.'" >> >> Justice O'Connor joins the Chief's opinion, but writes separately to suggest >> that the Pledge in schools is ok only because of a confluence of "four >> factors" that will virtually never again appear in combination in any other >> case. This result derives directly from pages 24-29 of the amicus brief that >> Doug Laycock wrote: http://goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/newdow.laycock.pdf. >> >> Justice Thomas concludes -- correctly, in my view, see >> http://www.goldsteinhowe.com/blog/files/Newdow%20Final%20Brief.pdf -- that if >> Lee v. Weisman was correctly decided, then public schools may not lead >> students in daily recitation of the words "under God." Thomas, however, >> would overrule Lee. >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Marty Lederman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "David Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:42 AM >> Subject: Links to Newdow Opinions >> >> >>> It appears that those links did not work. All of the opinions can be found >>> here: >>> >>> http://supct.law.cornell.edu:8080/supct/html/02-1624.ZS.html >>> >> >> >> >> > > -- > Nathan Oman > > http://www.tutissima.com > http://www.timesandseasons.org > -- > _______________________________________________ > To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
