Eight Chickens on the High Court

I feel sorry for my friend Michael Newdow, he had all of the standing in the world to remove the words "under god" from the pledge of allegiance. Instead the Supreme Court chickened out and ruled in an 8-0 decision that Michael lacked standing because he did not have sufficient custody. In backing away from a definitive decision, the Court's decision allowed for the possibility of more lawsuits surrounding the words "under God" if both parents agree that the reciting of the words causes harm for their child. Because the ex-girlfriend of Newdow (who has become a pawn for rightwing conservative groups everywhere) did not see a problem in the citing of the pledge during the two months she has custody of their child, the Court threw the case out of court. Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority decision found questions of "domestic relations" force the Court to "stay its hand rather then reach out and resolve a weighty question of Constitutional law." Meanwhile Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Thomas, and Chief Justice Renquist attempted to find a constitutional answer justifying the reciting of the pledge. Note the absence of Justice Scalia, who recused himself due to comments he made before the Knights of Columbus on the same issue. This decision did not slam the door shut on the constitutional question of the pledge of allegiance (or the use of "In god we trust" on our money), it simply established a set of guidelines for future cases before the High Court. So for example, if both parents agree that reciting the pledge is harmful to their child then they each have standing and may bring suit. Both my parents agreed to bring suit against the Boy Scouts of American for their inclusion of "god" in the scout oath and thus the case was able to proceed (of course we challenge the membership requirements of Scouting and thus the case was based on a private/public challenge of California's Unruh Civil Rights Act). According to SCOTUSBlog four different cases are pending in lower courts concerning the use of the pledge of allegiance, todays decision did not stop them in their tracks. This issue will arise again before the Court and this time they will have to make a firm decision. The chances of the Court siding with a Newdow type argument are slim-to-none as long as a conservative majority remains on the bench. However, we could see a tie decision if Scalia decides to recuse himself from the future pledge cases. So in closing, all of those religious groups who want to claim victory, I recommend you put down the champagne and crosses. For my friends, I recommend you pick your heads up and get back into the game. This fight is far from over and I for one would love to argue this issue before the Supreme Court.