Newdow Redux

Here we go again. Michael Newdow, this time acting as an attorney, not a self-represented plaintiff, has convinced US District Judge Lawrence Karlton that the inclusion of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance is unconsitutional. In making his decision, Karlton referred to the precedent of the Ninth Circuit Court's earlier Newdow decision.

The Supremes ducked this one the last time Newdow dumped it on their doorstep, ruling that as the non-custodial parent he had no standing to bring the case before them, but apparently leaving standing the 9th Court's ruling in Newdow's favor. Though this will surely be appealed, it's hard to envision the 9th ruling differently than they did before, so this could well end up before the Supremes again. I imagine they're practicing their bobbing and weaving. From a constitutional interpretation perspective, this one's a no-brainer; Congress's inclusion of "under God" into the pledge clearly violates the 1st Amendment. How a conservative majority on the court can find a way sidestep that will be interesting. In what will be a spectacular display of judicial activism, though, they almost surely will.