Under God/Snowball's Chance in Hell
Michael Newdow argued his case in front of the Supreme Court today, trying to get the Pledge of Allegiance ruled unconstitional, and it doesn't matter how right he is. He's not going to win. But, frankly, right now, that's a good thing. We're trying to oust Republicans from the White House and Congress in 7 months. The last thing we need is a Court decision that will mobilize both ends of the religious right: the radical and the just plain nutty. It won't make a difference how loud the Democrats squawk their God-loving disapproval too, the electoral debate will have shifted from our economic decline to our moral decline. And Democrats will lose that debate, even if that's foolish.

Luckily, from what I've heard about the arguments today, there's no reason to think they might even come close to siding with Mr. Newdow (would Scalia have recused himself if there was even the slightest danger?) though they may weasel out by claiming he doesn't have standing to bring the case so they don't have to deal with the arguments. Still, it sounds like it was a fun day. I haven't found an entire transcript yet, but Slate gives a nice account with some details:

"Breyer says that the pledge serves the purpose of unification at the price of offending only a few. Newdow says that 'for 62 years [before it was amended in 1954] the pledge did serve the purpose of unification ... it got us through two world wars and a depression.' But he adds that the idea that if adding in 'under God' is not divisive, why did the country go 'berserk' when the 9th Circuit opinion came down? Rehnquist asks what the vote was in 1954, when it was amended. Newdow says it was unanimous. Rehnquist queries how that reveals divisiveness.

Newdow: 'It doesn't sound divisive? That's only because no atheist can get elected to Congress.' Here is where people actually applaud like it's a ball game. And here is where Rehnquist, who may be feeling the sting of Newdow's comeback, threatens to clear the court."

{UPDATE: Still no full transcript but the NYT has longer excerpts from the arguments, if you're sick like me and like reading that kind of thing}