[identity profile] peachespig.livejournal.com 2005-09-16 12:31 am (UTC)(link)
Well, when this happened a few years ago the Supreme Court essentially threw it out on a technicality - they claimed the guy didn't have the right to represent his daughter, or something. They didn't rule at all on the overarching issue.

Now he's found somebody else to represent, and it looks like the state courts are basically going to rubber stamp the previous rulings again. So no real action until it gets back to the Supreme Court, but then there should be a genuine ruling. Of course, depending on how many justices Bush has appointed by then, the ruling may be a foregone conclusion....

[identity profile] owlmoose.livejournal.com 2005-09-16 01:16 am (UTC)(link)
I remembered the context of the Supreme Court's decision after I read through the whole article. Something about the father not being the custodial parent.

Given the recent Ten Commandments rulings I have some hope, assuming the court's complexion doesn't change *too* much between now and 2006-2007, which is likely how long it will take this ruling to work its way through the system.