[Strategerist]

I find it a little weird that are talking about this as if the police in the 9th Circuit area were empowered to run around breaking into houses arresting people who included "Under God" in the pledge in their houses; people can say "Under Elvis," "Under Satan," or whatever they want in the pledge in their houses, on the street, etc. The issue, of course, is what students led by teachers in public schools were to be instructed to say.

[Southack]

"The issue, of course, is what students led by teachers in public schools were to be instructed to say."

No, the 9th Circuit ruled that teachers couldn't even voluntarily say the pledge in school, regardless of who they were leading, if anyone (for instance, the pledge might be led by a student, but the 9th said that a teacher couldn't even join in with reciting it).

The rights of all teachers to freely practice their own religious beliefs were being trampled. This wasn't about the school *forcing* all teachers to recite the pledge, but rather it was about preventing teachers from even voluntarily choosing to recite the pledge in school.

Consider, if the SCOTUS had upheld the 9th's ruling, that the Pledge would have become forbidden verbiage. No teacher, while at work, could have uttered those words aloud, ever. Those words in the Pledge would have become illegal in public.