"Proponents say that the measure is not solely religious, but that it has historical significance to the foundation of U.S. law." It's really hard to take that

"Proponents say that the measure is not solely religious, but that it has historical significance to the foundation of U.S. law." It's really hard to take that argument seriously. It's not merely bad law, but it's ahistorical. Perhaps the irony of that is deliberate. I assume that the Supreme Court will uphold it. In Newdow, about the Pledge of Allegiance, they dismissed the case because the plaintiff wasn't a parent. That doesn't work in this case. They might have to actually make a ruling. There's the usual "ceremonial deism" argument, used for "In God We Trust", which says that it doesn't actually mean "God", but is really just a meaningless turn of phrase. That, all by itself, is enough for me to consider the Supreme Court and the entire profession of law as unsalvageably stupid. They might figure it's time to overturn Gitlow v. New York, which cites the "due process" clause to apply Bill of Rights restrictions to states. Though they'd have to be careful about that: they don't want to accidentally imply that the Second Amendment didn't apply.