Hardly. Although this may have been a procedural ruling on its face, the 8-0 decision speaks volumes, given its pronouncement on Flag Day and unanimity of the bench. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist agreed with the outcome of the case, but still wrote separately to say that the Pledge as recited by schoolchildren does not violate the Constitution. Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.
the 8-0 vote tells me if you throw a life preserver to eight drowning people...... three of the justices agreed. leaves six i believe.
In reviewing the decision, it does appear the merits of the case were discussed quite extensively. I quote some excerpts from the ruling and concurring opinions, which should give us some insight as to the direction in which the high court is leaning:
the same three justices are sighted. good thing you aren't selective.
"There is no doubt that respondent is sincere in his atheism and rejection of a belief in God.
But the mere fact that he disagrees with this part of the Pledge does not give him a veto power over the decision of the public schools that willing participants should pledge allegiance to the flag in the manner prescribed by Congress." (Chief Justice Rehnquist)
what is funny to me about this is the problem lies with "the manner prescribed by congress", not newdow's objection to it. his objection to it is not the point. it is the constitutionality of it that is at issue. how old is rhenquist now?
"I believe that government can, in a discrete category of cases, acknowledge or refer to the divine without offending the Constitution." (Justice O'Connor)
well, sandra day, what would those be? what are the lines that define the "discrete category of cases? this is impossibly weak. there is no courage here at all.
"Michael Newdow's challenge to petitioner school district's policy is a well-intentioned one, but his distaste for the reference to "one Nation under God," however sincere, cannot be the yardstick of our Establishment Clause inquiry." (Justice O'Connor)
it isn't. the yardstick is that a significant minority of people would reasonably be presumed to feel the same way.
"To be sure, such an affirmation is not a prayer. . . .Through the Pledge policy, the State has not created or maintained any religious establishment, and neither has it granted government authority to an existing religion. The Pledge policy does not expose anyone to the legal coercion associated with an established religion. Further, no other free-exercise rights are at issue.
It follows that religious liberty rights are not in question and that the Pledge policy fully comports with the Constitution." (Clarence Thomas)
perhaps thomas would have enjoyed being the only black student in an all white high school in 1964 in virginia. perhaps he would have a better appreciation of how an "alternative religion" kid feels when he chooses not to participate in the pledge. there are schools where the student wouldn't make it home.
if the justices were really making a decision based on custody rights and right to speak for the child, what do these opinions have to do with the case? foolish really, because they are simply letting the next person who brings the same suit what their strategies will be to stop it. if you don't think they look pathetic and desperate this time, stay tuned. the next effort will be that much better prepared, which means these three will have to come up with decisions even more ludicrous than these.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-1624