Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitutional

[scaeagles]

"Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

The Supreme Court dismissed the case last year, saying Newdow lacked standing because he did not have custody of his elementary school daughter he sued on behalf of."

So why did Karlton say was bound by precedent of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they were overruled? That makes no sense at all.

Now, considering that the SC said Newdow had no legal standing in the earlier case, and this one is structured slightly differently as I understand it, he could have just ruled. but to cite the previous decision of the 9th is...well....stupid.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

So why did Karlton say was bound by precedent of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals when they were overruled? That makes no sense at all.

Is the case being thrown out originally on a technicality the same as being overruled? The technicality doesn't exist this time, therefore either does what the Supreme Court originally ruled. I could be mistaken but that's how it reads to me.