Time to move on to more interesting topics

I have not failed to note that most of my recent posts were pretty much rehashes of the fiasco in Iraq. I was hoping to find something new and amusing in the news, and I knew it was only a matter of time.
Now, the Supreme Court (of the United States) has ridden to my rescue.

"When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the majority. (AP, June 14, 2004)

Yep; it sure would be imprudent if the Supreme Court actually exerted itself to resolve questions of constitutional law! Who do you think they are, anyway? What is the Court for? Why, it's there to dodge thorny questions of constitutional law. Or maybe to tell the states (read, Florida) how to interpret their own laws about things like, for instance, elections.

I actually remember when this "under God" thing was inserted into the pledge. As an elementary schooler at the time, I was required to stand and recite the pledge every day. Not reqired to, you say? Sure, I could have remained sitting, or stood in silence. I guess for those who don't believe in such a thing as peer pressure, or have forgotten the horrible sense of being different, in those early years, being the only child not saying the pledge would be easy. Even as I aquiesced, and joined in the reciting, though, I wondered to myself: "Whose God are we under?"

I guess the Court wonders about that, too...