One nation, under who?

It was a Flag Day that Michael Newdow would never forget.\nOn June 14, the Supreme Court delivered the "under God" case for us. Should Newdow's daughter be forced to listen to the name of "God" spoken in public school while he attempts to raise her under his atheist beliefs? Facing an opportunity to create a solid Establishment Clause standard, the fab nine balked.\nDelaying the inevitable, the Supreme Court said "because California law deprives Newdow of the right to sue as next friend, he lacks prudential standing to challenge the school district's policy in federal court."\n Excuse us?\n It seems they found a loophole. The reality of Newdow's family situation is that although he may be a biological father, he is not a legal guardian. As such, he was attempting to file suit as his daughter's "next friend," which the Court felt disqualified him from attempting to change the laws of our land. They suggest, "California cases simply do not stand for the proposition that Newdow has the right to reach outside the private parent-child sphere to dictate to others what they may and may not say to his child respecting religion."\nIs that really the point? \nImplicit in their phrasing is that Newdow may not have the right to argue the case, but a legal guardian would.\nTo be fair, in the Court's opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens does make a play to define the Pledge as a "patriotic exercise designed to foster national unity," created "more than a century ago" and loaded with symbolic niceties. \nHowever, that really wasn't the question at hand. \nNewdow was not arguing that his daughter shouldn't participate in the century old recitation of the pledge; more specifically, he wished that the words "under God" -- a part of the pledge for only about 50 years -- be removed. Unity is not under fire; establishment is.\nHere is where the Court ran scared into the bushes. They knew not even bland patriotic rhetoric was going to take the burden of this case from them without severely upsetting one large portion of the country or another. If the word "God"' is removed, we would see hoards of the faithful throw their arms up in disgust. Should our government hold that "God" in the pledge is not an endorsement, but a symbol of our founding history or a representation of all gods, the phrasing then would become empty. Those who wanted "God" to mean God would find no solace, while those who are offended by the word in any form would feel alienated as well.\nThere are no winners in this case.\nThis is where our Court shows weakness. They rule for politics to keep the populace less than irate, if not pleased. They did not rule for law, they ruled for lawmakers cowering under a technicality as we wait for the next Newdow to come along and start over from square one.