It seemed like the perfect prelude to a symbolic tour-de-force. The Supreme Court, always deliberate in its selection of dates, slated its ruling on the constitutionality of the "under God" phrase of the Pledge of Allegiance for June 14 - not only Flag Day, but the 50th anniversary of the insertion of the phrase by Congress. The justices had an opportunity to powerfully affirm or deny its legitimacy, and all signs indicated that they intended to do so. Fueled by election-year partisanship, the court case that challenged the phrase became the subject of heated debate between liberals and conservatives. And inappropriately and uncharacteristically, the Supreme Court, well, dropped it like it was hot.
The eight members of the court who sat on the case ruled that the man who brought it, Californian Michael Newdow, did not have legal standing because under California custody law his estranged wife retained full discretion over their daughter's education. While that may be the case, legal history is rife with examples - among them Roe v. Wade - in which the court ignored issues of standing in order to respond to topics of high controversy.
That, however, wasn't the most peculiar part of the ruling - not by a long shot. The truly strange thing was the way individual justices ruled. Justices Thomas and Rehnquist, usually fans of standing precedent and restraint, issued opinions in opposition to deleting the phrase that made no mention of Newdow's standing. Many of the more liberal justices, who are usually less content to stand on procedure, declined to rule on the case for that very reason. In fact, Justice Stevens, widely regarded as among the most liberal on the court, said in his opinion that the "unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government" should not overstep its bounds in such cases, directly quoting a 1983 opinion by the infamous ultraconservative Robert Bork.
It seems likely, based on such counterintuitive opinions, that the dismissal of Newdow's case was not a result of legal precedent or procedure, but rather infighting between the justices. The court liberals, knowing or fearing they lacked a majority on the issue, made peace with the moderates who wanted to put off the topic until after the next election cycle.
However, what was perhaps a victory for politicians was not a victory for the public. Due to the nature of the ruling, the issue of the phrase's constitutionality remains open, and one can only assume that similar lawsuits will follow Newdow's lead. A decision on the matter in the coming year or two is nearly inevitable, and delaying the issue bought the court nothing but insulation from election-year politics.
The court had an opportunity to decisively and symbolically put and end to a powerful political maelstrom. The opportunity was too good to let it slide by on a technicality.
- Staff editorials are the collective opinion of the Wildcat opinions board.