Supreme Court Takes Pledge of Allegiance Case

[Theophylact]

Scalia has recused himself. A decision is expected by June.

[J-Excel]

Removing the words "under God" in an election year doesn't stand a chance. None of the candidates want to alienate their Christian voters, so they'll all make a big deal about their support to keep the words in the pledge.

[tony_j15]

I did not see anywhere that Scalia recused himself. it does say he was asked, but never said he did. Did i not read it correct/did you misread it/or are you trying to push something?(we already know the answer to that)

[J-Excel]

The court offered no reason for Scalia's decision not to take part in the case. That leaves the potential for a contentious 4-4 split among the remaining justices when it comes time to issue a ruling.

[Theophylact]

From Eugene Volokh's blog:

SHEER SPECULATION ABOUT THE PLEDGE CASE: John Noble, a participant on a discussion list that I run, asked: If Justice Scalia wasn't strictly required to recuse himself -- and though I'm not a legal ethics scholar, my tentative guess is that his recusal wasn't clearly mandated by the law, but was rather something on which reasonable judges could differ -- then might his recusal be a hint that he knew the Court would not split 4-4? He might either strongly suspect that, say, Justice Souter or Justice Breyer will join the four remaining conservatives to uphold the Pledge; or he might strongly suspect that, say, Justice O'Connor or Justice Kennedy will join the four liberals to strike it down.

Naturally, if Scalia felt that the recusal rules required him to recuse himself, then he would presumably ignore such considerations. But if it was a close question, then I think he might legitimately consider this factor, since 4-4 splits end up wasting the Court's time, and leaving the law unsettled. So -- the theory goes, and I'm not sure that it's right -- Justice Scalia's recusal might be a signal that he knows something about the Justices' likely votes, and that whatever they'll be, they probably won't be 4-4.

[SiliconJon]

You know that "Under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954, and is by no means a long standing part of the pledge?

And did you know the reason it was added was to distinguish America as "religiously faithful", versus our "faithless" "enemy" communism?!

I would say that the term could be considered too general to be considered religious, but it was indeed added on a very religious note & promotion, so I would be inaccurate to assume such.