  Inspired by the latest church-state Supreme Court decision, I wrote about 10 pages of thesis last night. No prospectus yet, but I'm thinking about naming chapter 4 "The Rehnquist Court: No-Talent Ass Clowns. " I spent a good twenty minutes of my drive this morning debating between Ass Monkeys and Ass Clowns, using at least as much intellectual effort as the Court itself must have in rendering the Newdow decision. Since I'm probably the only person nerdy enough to have read the whole opinion last night, I'll give you the high points: the vast majority of it focuses on Newdow's custody battle, making a church-state issue into one of parental rights.
Which is ridiculous, as Newdow has physical custody of his daughter almost ten months out of the year, and she's a minor, making her opinion relatively irrelevant per previous church-state and other decisions. The mother, however, had been granted "sole legal custody" of the child, allowing her to make educational and religious decisions regarding the minor. Granted, as a parental-rights issue, it appears that the mother has a valid claim. This opinion, however, gives substantial importance to the fact that the daughter was fairly apathetic regarding the Pledge (not surprising, considering she was five years old when the suit was filed). The implications of taking the juvenile daughter's wishes into account are far-reaching, especially in cases involving medical treatment and religious free exercise. Stevens essentially broadened the necessary criteria for standing beyond parents to include the minors in their care as autonomous individuals, something relatively unprecedented, especially to this degree. Consider the implications of a case involving Jehovah's Witnesses where the parents wanted to withhold medical treatment but the child, say, a six-year-old, was insistent on receiving a blood transfusion.
Prior precedent states that the decision (odd as the situation seems, it's the best I can do right now) would ultimately rest with the parents. Based on Newdow, there could be some serious conflicting interests. Do parents have a right to prevent their children from doing something which would, per their belief system, damn their souls? What if the situation involved Hindu children who were allowed meat at their elementary school? Do the parents decide what their children are served in order to comply with their religious beliefs, or should the children choose? I'm not answering any of these questions here, but it looks to me like a supremely big bucket of worms regarding parental rights and the autonomy of minors has just been opened.
Not satisfied to only sign his name to an opinion, Rehnquist's concurring drivel focuses, of course, on the historical/traditional argument of ceremonial deism, for example: the fourth verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner," mentions that "in God is our trust! " (my copy of the opinion doesn't have page numbers yet, but this tidbit of wisdom can be found a few paragraphs above footnote 4). And of course, all schoolchildren not only know all the words to the fucking fourth verse of the national anthem, but are also forced to recite them daily in public schools, right, Rehnie? Because that would really make this argument hold water. As a sidenote, big props to Scalia for recusing himself.
I could go on for days, but I'll spare you my separatist rants. I will say this is the most pussified set of justices since the White Court upheld the Espionage Act during WWI, cowering in their robes after a few of them were accused of being--gasp--"activist judges" and for not recognizing that constitutional protections go out the window when we're at war, hello! Jesus Christ, the reason these guys have lifetime appointments is so they can render decisions without pandering to popular opinion or right-wing (or, less likely, left-wing) administrations. The upside to all of this is that it reinforced my conviction that I have stumbled onto an area in which I can be completely entertained for 80+ hours weekly.
In light of my recent foray into bachelorette-hood (and not the academic kind), my prospects for getting married and breeding are looking more and more dismal. It's a good thing I have a fallback plan, i.e. workaholic religious liberty attorney. And to think, I was going to blog today about how Bowling for Columbine pissed me off. 
