[« But I know it's here somewhere....] [Wonderbrad Watch »]
06/15/2004: Thought for the Day:
Sandra Banning came to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals with a custody order in hand. The date on it was Feb. 6, 2002, and it expressly provided that she had "sole legal custody as to the rights and responsibilities to make decisions relating to the health, education and welfare of" their daughter, that the two parents should "consult with one another on substantial decisions" but that Banning, not Newdow, had the right to "exercise legal control" if the parents could not reach agreement. Banning, in other words, had a judicially enforceable trump as their child's primary custodian. And before you insist that giving one parent a veto is unfair or unsound, let me remind you that the other option is Solomon's. It involves a rather large saw.
--Dahlia Lithwick, [on the flag pledge case]
Len on 06.15.04 @ 07:41 AM CST
