The First Amendment has several clauses invovled. The clauses acknowledging the inalienable individual rights of man are undoubtedly incorporated by the 14th Amendment to the states.
The establishment clause, a restraint on the Federal gov't, was never meant to be incorporated. However, if you don't believ me research the 15 attempts by Congress to amend the First to include the states. It failed each time.
But that's neither here nor there because the original intent of the First Amendment was never to build a "Wall of Separation". A rudimentary knowledge of the history of America, it's founders and the debate on the First Amendment while states had established religions would confirm that, no?
Do you believe that the current SCOTUS will rule that the First Amendment does not apply to the states, specifically to a state supreme court justice?
Absolutely not. I believe there are 5 votes on this court to find a right to transcendent rights to whatever they can dream up.
Justice Stephens to Justice Ginsburg:
Ruthie, have you found any precedent for banning the voluntary recitation of the POA with the words "under God" included?
No Jean Paul, can't seem to find it anywhere in the Constitution or original intent per se, doggonitt!
That's OK Ruthie, we'll just find it in the 14th like we usually do!
Ohhhhhhhh Jean Paul, you're the man!!!!
Once the federal courts take power away from the states, they are relunctant to give it back; that seems to be the mindset of both conservative and liberal justices in the SCOTUS.
IMO, we will need to confirm at least three more solid conservative justices to the SCOTUS while keeping the current conservatives; these freshmen must take the lead and not follow the current justices if the states have any chance of getting back some of the usurped powers.