On a technicality, AP just doesn't get it

The AP story about the Supreme Court's decision in the Pledge of Allegiance case is headlined "Court Allows 'Under God' on Technicality." Now, setting aside the issue of whether the Court was right, and also the underlying issues, this headline is simply deceptive. The majority opinion held that the plaintiff Michael Newdow lacked standing to sue on behalf of his daughter, over whom he does not have custody and whose mother, who does have custody, wants to recite the Pledge with "under God" in it.

That holding may be technical, but that does not make it a technicality. "Technicality" connotes a trivial point, one that evades the core of a problem. But standing---the right for a particular person to sue for a particular problem---is a major issue in any case, and especially in federal cases, and especially in federal cases predicated somehow on state family law rights. I cannot just sue any man for hitting his wife---I don't know either of them, and have not been wronged by his actions (assume they're tortious, for this analogy). Presumably, the wife could. Whether Newdow was more like me or the wife in this analogy is a tricky issue, and a technical one. But it is central to the case, and resolving the case on this basis cannot rightly be described as a technicality.

UPDATE The Post agrees with me.
- posted by Anonymous @ 8:18 AM