And good for them: “rules about standing, however inconvenient, serve a purpose: limiting the power of the federal courts over our lives and government policies.” (Steve Chapman, “On the pledge, the Supreme Court punts”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 17). An earlier court ruling had already established the girl’s mother as guardian of her legal interests, and California plaintiff Michael Newdow (who was never married to the mother) should not be permitted to evade that determination by pursuing proceedings in a second court (more on standing).
Supremes dispose of Pledge case on standing grounds
And good for them: “rules about standing, however inconvenient, serve a purpose: limiting the power of the federal courts over our lives and government policies.” (Steve Chapman, “On the pledge, the Supreme Court punts”, Chicago Tribune, Jun. 17). An earlier court ruling had already established the girl’s mother as guardian of her legal interests, and […]
Comments are closed.