The Pledge of Allegiance Case

Michael A. Newdow, the trained, non-practicing lawyer and emergency-room physician who is also a proud atheist and champion for the rights of his 9-year-old daughter NOT to recite a Pledge of Allegiance every morning in school that seems to define her own father as un-American ... the man who induced widespread foaming at the mouth over his suit in Elk Grove, California, last year to remove "under God" from the Pledge and who won in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, inducing REALLY widespread foaming at the mouth. THAT Michael Newdow represented himself yesterday in arguing his case before the Supremes, and apparently he was more than merely stunning in his effectiveness ... "Spellbinding," said the New York Times, he argued his case "with passion and precision," sparring wittily with the gimlet-eyed Chief Justice Rehnquist (one of Newdow's ripostes directed at Rehnquist caused the courtroom to erupt with applause, which in turn caused Rehnquist to threaten to clear the room, "if there's any more clapping"). Newdow "never appeared to lose his footing during the 30 minutes the court gave him, ... managing a trick that far more experienced lawyers rarely accomplish: to bring the argument to a symmetrical and seemingly unhurried ending just as the red light comes on."

FOOTNOTE TO HISTORY: While those given to foaming at the mouth over this issue seem to believe that "under God" was in fact written into the Pledge of Allegiance by George Washington, while Thomas Jefferson held the candle ... the fact of the matter is that the entire Pledge is little more than 100 years old, the product of politics in a different age, and the "under God" phrase was ADDED in 1954 at the height of the Cold War, in a pious and wholly redundent attempt to distinguish America from "godless Communism."

Before the Justices rule on the merits of Newdow's argument, they must first decide whether he has "standing" to bring the case, since he was never married to his daughter's mother, who has complete custody of the child. The Justices might decide to take the easy way out, ruling that without proper standing, Newdow has no right to a decision. Newdow's daughter's mother, incidentally, is represented by professional bluenose Kenneth W. Starr.

What is not widely known about Newdow's appearance and argument yesterday before the Supreme Court is that he demanded that Associate Justice Antonin Scalia recuse himself, and without comment, Scalia complied. ('Pears that Scalia went duck-hunting with God two years ago and has been seen chumming around with The Diety in various watering-holes all over the eastern United States.)

If I were Karl Rove, I would be praying (in school and out) that Newdow prevails (and with Scalia off the case, there could be a 4 to 4 tied vote, which means the decision of the Ninth Circuit, throwing out "God," would stand). What could be better for George Bush's reelection chances than a decision that would galvanize the Christian Right?