[cyncooper]

I'll bet the technicality was that Newdow didn't have standing in the case

That seems to be what Pete Williams is saying on MSNBC. Yes, he just repeated it. Newdows no longer married and mother has custody and she had no objection to the daughter saying the pledge.

[Strategerist]

That seems to be what Pete Williams is saying on MSNBC

Pete Williams successfully figured out the USSC decision in the Florida Recount almost instantly, and about 15 minutes before everyone else; he's obviously a fast reader with a clue, so he's probably right.

[mrs tiggywinkle]

**Newdows no longer married and mother has custody and she had no objection to the daughter saying the pledge. **

Michael Newdow and Sandy Banning were never married. Sandy Banning has no objection to their daughter reciting the pledge with the words *under God*. :o)

[Condor51]

Yes, after I posted FNC confirmed my hunch. Newdow didn't have standing.

However, this case is another example of the 9th Circus(sic) getting 'it' wrong again. They should have easily come to the same conclusion - no standing. But it almost seems like they make these wrong rulings on purpose, just to keep SCOTUS busy.

Those mopes need to be impeached or at least sanctioned.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

My understanding was that he was NEVER married to the child's mother.