Punting on the Pledge

After months of expectation, the Supreme Court has essentially punted on the issue of whether "under God" must come out of the Pledge of Allegiance. The majority of the Court tossed the case on a technical issue, holding that Newdow lacked standing to pursue a case on behalf of his daughter. I can't say they're wrong - Newdow's domestic situation did not make him an ideal plaintiff. The central issue, however, remains unresolved and will surely be taken up with a more appropriate plaintiff. For the time being, however, the Ninth Circuit's striking down of the Pledge is null and void. You can read the Court's opinion here.

The three concurring opinions are interesting, as they conclude that Newdow had standing and proceeded to the merits, each finding that "under God" can stay in the Pledge. Rehnquist and O'Connor seem of have drunk of the "ceremonial deist" Kool-Aid, although only O'Connor admits it: "That cannot be seen as a serious invocation of God or as an expression of individual submission to divine authority." Thomas goes way out on a limb, arguing that the Court should basically start anew on the Establishment Clause by holding that it does not apply to the states.