I'm not sure the Supreme Court will get a chance. The case is almost certain to be heard em banc by the entire 9th Circuit, and they might reverse the ruling. If they do, I doubt the SC would hear the plaintiff's appeal.
It would be an interesting case for the Supreme Court to hear. If they uphold yesterday's ruling, it would effectively ban the mention of God in anything relating to a government activity. That certainly would be consistent with the trend in decisions over the past few decades.
However, they could also take the opportunity to state that the Constitution doesn't require such an extreme prohibition, which would effectively reverse that trend. That would open up, once again, the controversies over Nativity scenes on government property, posting of the Ten Commandments, etc.
It would be an interesting case. If the Supreme Court upholds it, it's a slam dunk that IN GOD WE TRUST is unconstitutional as well. People can refuse today to recite the Pledge, but they can't refuse legal tender containing that phrase as satisfaction of debt. Similarly, the oath witnesses are required to take before testifying ("so help me God") would have to be immediately modified.
I am actually very happy that the court made this ruling yesterday because it forced the entire country to wrestle with these questions, and we need a final resolution as to whether the Government has to go to extreme lengths to avoid anything with even a vague religious connotation.
This thread is troubling to me because it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the doctrine of separation of powers, which by the way has equal if not greater constitutional credibility than the God-nexus alluded to by so many.
The judicial branch of government is not designed to bend to public opinion. The place for public redress in government is the executive and legislative branches. That is why we saw the photo-ops of Congress and Pres. Bush yesterday denouncing the decision and promising to "do something about it."
The Ninth Circuit in this case was the first court of judicial review after the case was dismissed at the district court (entry) level. Hardly the last word on the issue. As you pointed out, there will likely be an en banc review meaning that all of the justices of the 9th circuit will convene to re-hear the case. I imagine they'll correct the decision at that level, but if not, then surely at the SC level. However, even if the Supremes upheld the decision, then the Legislature would probably sieze on the opportunity to act, particularly in this fevered patriotic zeitgest.
This decision is no justification for an attempt to short-circuit our constitutional system of checks and balances even though it may not satisfy our popular need for immediate gratification. One of the reasons our constitution has worked so well for so long is due to its inherent procedural pause.
...as to whether the Government has to go to extreme lengths to avoid anything with even a vague religious connotation.
It might be interesting to compare the definitions of "extreme" through the eyes of the SC and 9th.
I smell some judge confirmation WAR in the breeze.