Wednesday, June 16, 2004
On Newdow's standing
Yesterday in a comment on vodkapundit and in a conversation with Thason, I brought up the following question: Why did the court even agree to hear Newdow knowing that he lacked standing going in?
This question is particularly troubling if you think the only result of the ruling was the establishment that plaintiffs with cases like Newdow's lack standing as the same result could've been achieved by simply stating that Newdow lacked standing and then refusing to hear the case.
Well Thason and Eugene Volokh both gave similar answers, so I thought I would relate my understanding of their answers here.
Comments(0) |
This question is particularly troubling if you think the only result of the ruling was the establishment that plaintiffs with cases like Newdow's lack standing as the same result could've been achieved by simply stating that Newdow lacked standing and then refusing to hear the case.
Well Thason and Eugene Volokh both gave similar answers, so I thought I would relate my understanding of their answers here.
1. For the SCOTUS to overturn a ruling by a lower court, the SCOTUS must actually hear the case.Thus the answer to my dilemma is the following. The SCOTUS actually accomplished two things in their decision.
2. The SCOTUS wished to overturn the Ninth Circuit's decision, which had ruled that the phrase "Under God" was unconstitutional in the pledge.
3. However, the SCOTUS did not want to create legal standing where there was none, thus the Newdow case could only be decided on the basis of his legal standing, not on the constitutionality of "Under God." (A constitutionality decision would've meant that Newdow had standing.)
1.A precedent for standing in was established
2. The SCOTUS signaled how it would rule in the future if a plaintiff with standing ever made it back to the SCOTUS.
Comments(0) |
