The Supreme Court, on Wednesday, heard arguments from California atheist, Michael Newdow, as to whether the phrase ‘under god’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is constitutional. However, the Supreme Court has an ‘out’ if they elect to use it.
Justices could dodge the issue altogether. They have been urged to throw out the case, without a ruling on the constitutional issue, because of questions about whether Newdow had custody when he filed the suit and needed the mother’s consent.
What I found of interest is that Scalia has recused himself from the case. I think this sort of deflates the argument over the Scalia/Cheney connection in that Scalia obviously is capable of recusing himself where a conflict of his personal interests exist. Not something you will likely see pointed out by any liberal pundit.
Absent from the case is one of the court’s most conservative members, Justice Antonin Scalia, who bowed out after he criticized the ruling in Newdow’s favor during a religious rally last year. Newdow had requested his recusal.
