Standing Under God.
My dark horse hopes of a ruling on the merits that the pledge violates the first amendment did not manefest itself today. Rather, the pan-academic expected dismissal on standing grounds kept a two-sided debate on the pledge under the establishment clause at bay.

Standing is a dark and thick judicial issue. It has two large themes: 1) standing as required by the Constitution's article III- this is the more clear cut question of whether the plaintiff has been injured in some way, where a case might actually solve or assist the problem...(ie- the Court won't issue advisory opinions, or delve into issues without physical manifestations of the issue's impact; 2) prudential standing- this is the wavy, non-descript issue of when the Court ought to dive into an issue.

Newdow lost on prudential standing. Very simplifiedly, Newdow does have a right to affect the upbringing of his daughter. He would win in a challenge to allow him the chance to talk with her about atheism. However, without greater standing (here- without what is called "next friend" or without full custody rights), he cannot challenge the actions of third parties (here, the school district).

The majority opinion does not touch the first amendment merits. But all is not lost. We are given the pleasure from Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas of what these three Justices would have opined had the case gone onto merits. They would have upheld the "under god" addition to the pledge. More, when I get the chance to read carefully through these.

BUT, where is Kennedy? Notably absent from the concurrences is Kennedy's name. Does this mean he would not have agreed with Rehnquist/Thomas and O'Connor that "under god" is OK?
If you were hoping for a ruling upholding the pledge as is, this should cause massive stomach upheaval. Kennedy might have been set to anger 'the right' again this summer.

Here's my utterly ignorant projection of the next, standing-solid, decision on the same facts: Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer, Stevens and Kennedy will deem the "under god" addition unconstitutional; with Thomas, Rehnquist, O'Connor and Scalia (when he takes part in the case)dissenting. Bets?