finding that Michael Newdow lacked legal standing to raise the issue because of his limited custody of his daughter, now in the fifth grade
is as probing as the paper goes.
I very much doubt that the left members of this court wanted to issue a ruling either way on this case. At this point if the words to the pledge had been held as Constitutional, then Bush would look good. If the words had been held unconstitutional then Bush could use that as an opportunity to look good. Either way he could jump behind the pledge and appeal to the masses.
For most of the time that Newdow has been pursing this appeal to the Supreme Court, the ACLU and other liberal organizations have pled with him not to do it. First, because of the complex standing issues and the weak facts. Second, because regardless of the outcome it could only help Bush.
The rejection for lack of legal standing appears to be a very easy way to make sure there isn't really any sort of political benefits. I'm not sure whether or not some of the Justices were thinking about this when they pushed for lack of standing or not. I agree that there wasn't standing, and I'm glad they haven't ruled on the facts.
Of course, I'm not surprised at the decision, however, I'm a little surprised they rejected the standing this soon. I was expecting it right before they went on their summer recess.
