Correct me if I'm wrong..

...but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told" ..you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the Pledge.
I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
to **** in.

Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's the
Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this, can
expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

Dusty wrote:
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told" ..you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

You heard right. SCOTUS decided that fathers are "visitors" in our
children's lives, and we do not have "standing" to make decisions about
our children or to sue and demand that schools listen to our desires and
decisions for our children. Those rights are limited to the mothers.



I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the Pledge.
I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
to **** in.

It is a decision that set men's rights back 30 years.

It's going to take a lot more grieving fathers before the law is
changed. Let the "DC Sniper" be a shot across their bow.




Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's the
Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this, can
expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

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

FINDLAW full decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=02-1624


Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Tell us the story.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Dusty wrote:
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told" ..you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

You heard right. SCOTUS decided that fathers are "visitors" in our
children's lives, and we do not have "standing" to make decisions about
our children or to sue and demand that schools listen to our desires and
decisions for our children. Those rights are limited to the mothers.



I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the Pledge.
I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
to **** in.

It is a decision that set men's rights back 30 years.

It's going to take a lot more grieving fathers before the law is
changed. Let the "DC Sniper" be a shot across their bow.




Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's the
Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this, can
expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

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

FINDLAW full decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=02-1624


Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Tell us the story.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

Dusty wrote:
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told" ..you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

You heard right. SCOTUS decided that fathers are "visitors" in our
children's lives, and we do not have "standing" to make decisions about
our children or to sue and demand that schools listen to our desires and
decisions for our children. Those rights are limited to the mothers.



I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or other
wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised? Now,
don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the Pledge.
I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a pot
to **** in.

It is a decision that set men's rights back 30 years.

It's going to take a lot more grieving fathers before the law is
changed. Let the "DC Sniper" be a shot across their bow.




Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's the
Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this, can
expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

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

FINDLAW full decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...&invol=02-1624


Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Tell us the story.

Bob


--

When did we divide into sides?

"As president, I will put American government and our legal system back
on the side of women." John Kerry, misandrist Democratic candidate for
President. http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/women/

"Dusty" wrote in message
news
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or
other
wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised?
Now,
don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a
pot
to **** in.

Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Simple answer.....the lefties on the bench side stepped the issue, since
if they ruled the way they wanted, it would assure another 4 years of Bush
on the white house. The basis was that the mother had full legal and
physical custody, and therefore the father had no standing to bring the
case.......again, it was a lagal tap dancing to avoid making a decision that
would swing the election against the p.c. crowd.



------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

"Dusty" wrote in message
news
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or
other
wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised?
Now,
don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a
pot
to **** in.

Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Simple answer.....the lefties on the bench side stepped the issue, since
if they ruled the way they wanted, it would assure another 4 years of Bush
on the white house. The basis was that the mother had full legal and
physical custody, and therefore the father had no standing to bring the
case.......again, it was a lagal tap dancing to avoid making a decision that
would swing the election against the p.c. crowd.



------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

"Dusty" wrote in message
news
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

I couldn't believe my ears!! Since when does a parent (divorced or
other
wise) -not- have absolute power over how their children are raised?
Now,
don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against the wording of the
Pledge.
I have a problem when the Supreme Court tells us me NCPs haven't got a
pot
to **** in.

Can anyone post the full story? I'm having trouble finding much of a
reference to it... Thanks to the liberal media, I seriously doubt that
there will be much information on it... And any pin-head that says it's
the
Jew's [black's; Arabs; Asians; whites; Mexicans; etc..] fault for this,
can
expect a Louisville slugger up side their head from me!

Yes, I'm in a mood.... again. You can thank my X for that...

Simple answer.....the lefties on the bench side stepped the issue, since
if they ruled the way they wanted, it would assure another 4 years of Bush
on the white house. The basis was that the mother had full legal and
physical custody, and therefore the father had no standing to bring the
case.......again, it was a lagal tap dancing to avoid making a decision that
would swing the election against the p.c. crowd.



------------------------------------------------------------
Eliminate the impossible and whatever
remains, no matter how improbable, must
be the truth.

---- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle ---

"Dusty" wrote in message
news
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the Supreme
Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal ruling
based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a technicality,
the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.

"Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No lawsuit,
no ruling.

The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about 95%
of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
the west call it the 9th Circus Court.

"Dusty" wrote in message
news
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the Supreme
Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal ruling
based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a technicality,
the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.

"Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No lawsuit,
no ruling.

The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about 95%
of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
the west call it the 9th Circus Court.

"Dusty" wrote in message
news
..but do I believe I heard on the radio today that the father in the
Supreme
Court case against saying "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance was told"
...you
don't have enough parental rights.." or words to that effect. Hence, he
lost his case.

What you may have heard on the radio does not accurately reflect the Supreme
Court's decision. The court ruled the plaintiff did not have "standing."
Yes, he is the child's father, but he lacks the ability to bring a lawsuit
on behalf of the child. The father is an atheist trying get a legal ruling
based on his lack of beliefs not his daughter's actual beliefs. And
although many news media reports are stating the SC ruled on a technicality,
the court actually ruled on a 200+ year-old legal principle.

"Standing" is a legal hurdle to make sure the party initiating the lawsuit
can pursue what they want to achieve. No standing, no lawsuit. No lawsuit,
no ruling.

The real problem in this case is the "9th Circus Court" ignored the basic
legal principle of standing and acted in an activist way to pass this case
to the SC. This ruling is another rebuke of the 9th Circus Court, not
fathers. FYI - The 9th Circus Court has a track record of having about 95%
of their rulings overturned by the SC. That's why those of us who live in
the west call it the 9th Circus Court.