Today the Supreme Court issued a ruling which reversed the 9th Circuit Court’s ruling that the phrase “under God” was unconstitutional. Instead of trying to present an actual legal argument about the separation of church and state, they chose instead to merely rule that Michael Newdow could not bring suit on behalf of his daughter because he did not have standing to sue. The decision resolves none of the issues surrounding the issue, and I suspect additional suits will be brought reasonably quickly to attempt to get the Justices to consider this issue and give a ruling.

Still, the court is telegraphing its intentions in its opinion in a way which I find fairly disturbing. I have to have more time to digest the full text, but Chief Justice Rehnquist seems very willing to allow the religious language in the pledge continue with what appears to me only the flimsiest of justifications. I find such reasoning inexplicable given the court’s consistent rulings in the area of school prayer.

I suspect we haven’t heard the last of this case.

There are some good articles on oyez.com concerning the case and the issues surrounding it.