apparently 3 of the justices made a concurring opinion and said that even if they had ruled on the case based on its merits (the father's standing aside), their decision would not have changed.
Yeah, that is a tad disturbing. They are preaching from the bench a nit, but I guess they wanted to get their opinion into caselaw. I can see no way that it is constitutional to have a system where everyone is ASKED to say "under God" and force the "different" kids to option out of the event. It is the same pattern as in every other prayer in school decision that has said that this is too much for kids to deal with and that they shouldn't be subjected to such preasures by the government. I just don't see how the pledge is different.
Almost all of the legal writing supporting it has basically said something like, "Well, it is such a small thing and it is so well established that it really doesn't have religious signifigance anymore. It is more of a cicil thing." The only problem I have with that argument is, "If it is no big thing, why are all the religious societies fighting so hard to keep it in there?"