[TheSpottedOwl]

Does that mean he doesn't pass go, and collect a million dollars?

I think all this started when his ex wife became a born again Christian.

[bray]

Praise God!!

Pray for W and The Truth

[The Bandit]

Now we wait for ACLU to pick it up (groan)

[ex 98C MI Dude]

This is a case of a half a loaf being far better than none at all.

Yes, the SCOTUS ducked the central issue, but we can still recite the Pledge with the words 'under God' included.

That is worth a WHOO-WHOO! (not Nurse Fuzzy-Wuzzy?)

[leadpencil1]

This issue will be back.

[kjam22]

In a perfect world the court would have ordered him, and his attorney to split 50/50 the state's attorney fees and costs in this case.

[Graymatter]

Happy Flag Day! (Somebody alert Google, they haven't decorated their site for the occasion!)

[jriemer]

the court has thrown out Newdows case on a technicality. Score one for the pledge.

Note: The Newsdows case was thrown out on Flag Day. Who says the USSC isn't subtle.

[blanknoone]

Nevermind the 'under God' that was added later, the pledge itself was written by a socialist to advance a socialist agenda.

I personally pledge allegiance to the principles this country was founded on, as exemplified in a plain reading of the U.S. Constitution rather than to such abstractions as 'the Republic" and symbols like 'the Flag'

Make no mistake, I honor the flag, but I honor it because it represents the principles. I honor the principles through the flag. The pledge was written to seem to be patriotic while glazing over the essential principles. Classic leftist undermining.

[mc6809e]

Republicans used to put principles first.

It seems on the pledge issue they have become just as constitutionally pragmatic as the Democracts.

[steveo]

HOO-RAY!

[jwalsh07]

I'm getting good at this for an amateur. Exactly my prediciton.

[hattend]

BTTT

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe it's just me, but this decision leaves me wondering why the atheists who are intent on eliminating the phrase "under God" from the pledge would have found a better plaintiff for this case than someone like Newdow whose standing was in question right from the start.

[MeekOneGOP]

Dear Mr. Newdow: Crawl back under your rock now .....

Fox News Alert - Pledge case dismissed by USSC

Supreme Court Dismisses Pledge Case on Technicality

Mon Jun 14, 2004 10:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed on Monday a constitutional challenge to the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance recited by schoolchildren, without deciding the key church-state issue.

The justices ruled that California atheist Michael Newdow lacked the legal right to bring the challenge in the first place. "We conclude that Newdow lacks standing," Justice John Paul Stevens declared in the opinion. [Meek note here: His wife has custody of the child is the reason, is what FOX News is reporting].

The ruling came down on the 50th anniversary of the addition of the words "under God" to the pledge. Congress adopted the June 14, 1954, law in an effort to distinguish America's religious values and heritage from those of communism, which is atheistic.

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Thane_Banquo]

The Constitution triumphs over irrationality.

What was the technicality? I'm guessing they found Newdow couldn't show injury, since his daughter is a Christian.

[MplsSteve]

Unfiortunately, the fact that this case was dismissed on a technicality will only encourage another Newdow out there to file a suite, claiming the Pledge is unconstitutional.

I'm glad it was dismissed...but this is only a temporary victory.

[Salvation]

Hooray!!!

In God we trust!

One nation under God,

[admiralsn]

God Bless America

[cgk]

Wonderful. I'll take this is a victory even if others won't.

Ronald Reagan: "If we ever forget that we are One Nation Under God, then we will be a Nation gone under."