Monday, June 14, 2004

Problem Solved: The Supreme Court decided to keep "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. The justices didn't explicitly say the phrase was constitutional. They merely ruled that the man who filed the suit on behalf of his school-age daughter doesn't have legal custody to speak for her.

Thrown out on a technicality -- that's a very unsatisfactory way to go.

But it may have been the best move. I don't like the phrase "under God" in the Pledge, but I just wish that the phrase were never inserted in the 1950s. Now that it's there, I believe the phrase is benign and the Supreme Court shouldn't forcibly remove it. Among other problems, it would make for awkward mass recitals of the Pledge when conservatives say the old version and liberals say the new one.

This ruling, however, only delays eventual judgement. That's a typical chicken approach the Supreme Court takes to controversial issues -- like affirmative action (when they refused to rule on Hopwood then split the decision on the Michigan cases). I guess they plan to retire before they have to make any real decisions.