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 think we’re almost to the end of this. Don’t get me wrong–I’m not trying to understate the historical significance of the death of a president. But did we have to have all of the cable channels devote every news show to it for an entire week?
I think two factors are at play here: (1) broadcasters have been saving up for this event for a while and want to get all their material in; and (2) on a day-to-day basis networks do a lousy job of putting stories in a historical context, so now it’s time to catch up and educate everyone on President Reagan. It would be nice to see a little more objectivity and a little less rosy historical revisionism if that’s what they want to do.
One side benefit from this has been that the Scott Peterson trial coverage has been muted this week. Expect the hype to resume in full force on Monday.

If it bothers you, don’t go here.

President Bush yesterday and the new U.N. Security Council Resolution on Iraq:

I think this is a very important moment on the – on making sure that our objective is achieved.

An “important moment”? By the institution once deemed “irrelevant?” Wonders never cease.
Reader jeff-perado (stutz[at]unlv.nevada.edu) notes how Bush’s latest U.N. stance squares with that of his base:

President Bush had this to say in response to the news that the UN would by passing a security Council Resolution on the sovereignty of Iraq:

“There were some who said we’d never get one.”

So the question is, “Who actually did say that?” Well Neocon Richard Perle said it, as did Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld. They many times talked of how irrelevant the UN had become. But here’s another source: Bush’s own Texas Republican Platform!! If you read the platform (.pdf file) explaining the planks of their platform, you will come across this:

United Nations: The Party believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of the United States that we immediately rescind our membership in, as well as all financial and military contributions to, the United Nations.
We will:
1) support legislation similar to “The American Sovereignty Preservation Act”, which would remove the United States entirely from the control of the UN;
2) demand that Congress ratify no ambiguous treaties that compromise the United States Constitution;
3) support immediately recall our military forces from UN initiated engagements, direct or indirect UN control, and restore them to their traditional mission of defending the liberty and freedom of the people of the United States of America;
4) support an amendment to the United States Constitution stating, “a treaty that conflicts with any provisions of the Constitution shall not be of any force or effect”;
5) urge our Texas Senators to unalterably oppose any agreement or treaty that seeks to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC), make the United States a participatory party to such a court; recognize the jurisdiction of such a court within the United States or upon any native-born or naturalized citizen of the United States; and,
6) demand credit for peace keeping forces provided on behalf of the UN.

At least we now know who it is that opposes Bush, it is his own party’s beliefs! The really sad thing is that the “liberal media” will never point out the clear and apparent contradictions of Bush’s statements and those of his own administration and party. . . .
How long is Bush going to get a free ticket to lie and deceive the American public by the “liberal media?”
I am beginning to think that what they mean by liberal media” is that no one in the media bothers to check facts anymore, just accept them at face value as handed them from this administration.

Yes, that platform doesn’t suggest much international cooperation.
Speaking which, if you haven’t seen Kevin Drum’s summary of the Texas GOP platform, it’s worth a look to see their stealth agenda.

For several years now George W. Bush has attempted to wrap himself in Ronald Reagan’s cloak. Undoubtedly, Bush and his mouthpieces will now turn up such rhetoric now that the former president is gone.
But just how similar are the two? In his column yesterday, Paul Krugman noted a difference between the two when it comes to tax cuts (Reagan at least conceded that the government could dig itself too deep in the tax cut hole).
Another compare and contrast: how does this compare with Reagan’s “Morning in America” reelection theme:

Three-quarters of the ads aired by Bush’s campaign have been attacks on Kerry. Bush so far has aired 49,050 negative ads in the top 100 markets, or 75 percent of his advertising. Kerry has run 13,336 negative ads — or 27 percent of his total. The figures were compiled by The Washington Post using data from the Campaign Media Analysis Group of the top 100 U.S. markets. Both campaigns said the figures are accurate.
The assault on Kerry is multi-tiered: It involves television ads, news releases, Web sites and e-mail, and statements by Bush spokesmen and surrogates — all coordinated to drive home the message that Kerry has equivocated and “flip-flopped” on Iraq, support for the military, taxes, education and other matters.
“There is more attack now on the Bush side against Kerry than you’ve historically had in the general-election period against either candidate,” said University of Pennsylvania professor Kathleen Hall Jamieson, an authority on political communication. “This is a very high level of attack, particularly for an incumbent.”
Brown University professor Darrell West, author of a book on political advertising, said Bush’s level of negative advertising is already higher than the levels reached in the 2000, 1996 and 1992 campaigns. And because campaigns typically become more negative as the election nears, “I’m anticipating it’s going to be the most negative campaign ever,” eclipsing 1988, West said. “If you compare the early stage of campaigns, virtually none of the early ads were negative, even in ’88.”

Let’s see: Bush has had how many years to amass his “accomplishments,” and this his best shot at getting people to vote for him?
Interesting.