The Supreme Court dodges a political/constitutional minefield by ruling that a California father did not have standing to challenge the phrase “one nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The decision overturns a Court of Appeals ruling that the phrase is unconstitutional.
I didn’t follow the oral arguments to this case real carefully, and of course the coverage may not have been very thorough. But I don’t recall much discussion at the time the case was heard on whether or not the father had the right to sue. This was a convenient way for the court to avoid taking on the issue.
Interestingly, three–but only three–justices wrote separately to say they thought the phrase was constitutional. We can’t read too much into that, but apparently a five justice majority would have at least considered affirming the lower court’s ruling.
I knew it!!! I knew they were going to duck the substantive issue by deciding there was no standing.
Unfortunately for me, that wasn’t any sort of brilliant legal analysis. It was pretty much a no brainer….
This ACLU-lovin’, school-prayer hatin’ bleeding-heart lefty is glad SCOTUS punted. Read why here, if you’re interested.
Greetings,
Daniel, I am glad to hear your point of view. I, too, think that the left is lucky to have this particular battle left for a later day. Once Kerry is elected in Nov, then we can open a line of battle on this in the legislature, where this whole mess began in the first place. (that is assuming of course, that Dems take control of either the senate (possible) or house(less likely).
In the meantime, I recite the pledge in its pre-1954 version, the one that pays due respect to this great country in which we live.
–jeff-perado
P.S., I’ve added your blog to my list of blogs, expect to be hearing from me in the future.
I think it would take much more than one election for such a change to find much support in the legislature; it goes against the political current.