Talk:Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial text

I don't believe this case has yet been decided, ie see:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/02/pledge.custody.ap/
which says the case is scheduled for argument on March 24, 2004.

Also, as Newdow won the last round, I think his name comes second.

The case is going to be called Elk Grove Unified School District v. Michael A. Newdow, et al.
(according to http://washingtonpost.findlaw.com/supreme_court/docket/2003/march.html )

Evercat 23:46, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

non-binding resolution

" Also, the U.S. Senate passed a non-binding resolution and a bill reaffirming the presence of under God in the Pledge. President George W. Bush signed the bill into law on November 13, 2002."

If it was "non-binding" is it really correct to say that it was signed "into law"? If not, this should probably be rephrased. - Anonymous

It looks like they passed a non-binding resolution AND a bill, the latter being signed into law. It baffles me why they would waste time on not one but two statements of resolve, especially when it's already in law, but the first is a "statement of the Senate" that is likely much stronger, whereas the second has to be clean, without much opinionizing, and generally sound law if not appropriate law. - Centrx 05:31, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Non-binding" may not be the right phrase, though I can't think of a better one right now—but laws can still be laws even though they do not actually prohibit or mandate anything.

I just added some information about Rehnquist's concurrence... Thomas and O'Connor also wrote separate concurrences; if no one else gets around to writing about these, I will when I eventually take a look at reorganizing and further fleshing out the article. Postdlf 18:07, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Centrx's version: Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor and Thomas, however, did find standing but determined that the merits of the case did not favor Newdow.

Postdlf's version: Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices O'Connor and Thomas concurred in the reversal, but argued that there was standing and Newdow should have simply lost on the merits.

It's stated twice above that the decision was unanimous, and then in the same sentence that they thought Newdow's case didn't hold water, in other words that there was a reversal. So this is quadruply redundant, and triply extremely redundant. The entirety of these two paragraphs is about how they differed despite their unanimous decision, which is stated quite clearly above and doesn't need to be repeated. I've otherwise changed it to not to say "lost" because the case wasn't really about Newdow winning and losing, but about the inclusion of the "under God" phrase. - Centrx 21:03, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My version is not redundant—where else does it state what was agreed and disagreed on other than the general "legal reasoning" in the introductory paragraph for the opinion descriptions? My version is necessary to state exactly what was unanimous and what wasn't. Yours is imprecise and gives a wrong impression of how the opinions relate and what it means to have split reasoning in a judicial decision.

First, you can't talk about Rehnquist's opinion (joined by O'Connor and Thomas) without stating that it was a concurrence, because that's what it was—it concurred in the judgment that the 9th Circuit decision should be overruled. That's the only thing that was unanimous about the case—all justices wanted to reverse it.

It is furthermore necessary to say that Rehnquist concurred in the reversal and the reversal only, because a concurring opinion may agree with part, all, or none of the Court's main opinion. In this case, Rehnquist, et al, concurred only in the reversal and none of the Court's opinion, which is now nowhere stated clearly in the article.

Additionally, the case itself was about Newdow winning or losing, just as any case is about which party prevails, because he's the one with the complaint and the one (outside of amicus) making the arguments—courts decide controversies brought by parties, not facts abstracted from the people before them. Issues need to be resolved by the courts, but they do this to decide which party prevails. That's why if Newdow couldn't bring the suit, the Court couldn't even touch the Pledge issue—it really was about him winning or losing. No Newdow, no case.

I also take issue with the language you wish to use, that the concurring justices "did find standing"—a finding made by a judge is a factual conclusion that they have legally established as true within the case. The majority found there was no standing, so Rehnquist can't simultaneously "find" that there was—in the minority on this issue, he merely had the ability to argue that standing should have been found. I know this is nitpicky, but it matters.

I'd appreciate it if you would replace my wording because of the above reasons. I promise that I will flesh it out more later, but my version as it was is an brief, accurate, description. Postdlf 21:52, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thomas concurrance

I read the full text of Justice Thomas' concurrance, and I thought the summary in the article here was a little off, so I rewrote it. Comments and improvements welcome. -- Beland 04:44, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)