In the "under God" pledge ruling, the Supreme Court ultimately decided 8 to 0, that the parent Michael Nedow did not have a legal standing in the case because he does not have sole custody of his daughter. Although they didn't rule on the Constitutionality of the case, I want to point out that three justices; Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor, wanted to rule on the Constitutionality any way. They felt that Nedow's argument that the phrase "under God" violated his daughter's First Amendment protections didn't pass muster.

"To give the parent of such a child a sort of 'heckler's veto' over a patriotic ceremony willingly participated in by other students, simply because the Pledge of Allegiance contains the descriptive phrase 'under God,' is an unwarranted extension of the establishment clause, an extension which would have the unfortunate effect of prohibiting a commendable patriotic observance," Rehnquist wrote.

I caught Nedow's interview on Hannity's radio show on the way home from work. He seemed very argumentative and kept throwing up hypothetical arguments about Jesus and the establishment of Christianity as a national religion. He never once offered any convincing evidence to support his claims. If he made a similar argument in front of the SCOTUS, he should be thankful they opted not to rule on the Constitutionality.