Before bed-
didn't have time to read briefs for Newdow, nor read much on how oral arguments went, so the thesis is reserved til tomorrow i reckon. you have Balkins piece to tide you over.
incidently, i did hear Dr. Newdow did rather well in the orals, though.

so...thoughts to prepare:
if the court doesn't bunt with the standing issue- from what i hear, it will find that 'under god' is de minimus in its religious connotations, or "ceremonial deism" at most. my question: aren't both these concepts quite offensive to religion? that, folks, is the precise reason a baptist (or is it methodist) preacher heads up the leading group on separation for church and state (that i'm not linking until tomorrow cause i'm tired right now).

1) de minimus? God is de minimus? the idea that our country is under God is de minimus? do we take anything we say seriously? if so, how is this not establishment, so long as establishment means anything apart from 'the US church?'

2) ceremonial deism: much the same confusion. what is ceremonial deism, really? religion without the meaning? religion watered down enough to be cross-religious?

More serious thoughts tomorrow...but these are the basic confusions on my part.