Ceremonial Deism
The pledge case reminded me about the attempt by Republicans in Congress to claim judicial review as their own domain.
I've argued, in the past, that the 9 un-elected members of the Supreme Court have acted like philosopher kings (and relatively good ones, at that) who protect us from the tyranny of the majority.
The received wisdom about the pledge case, however, undermines my previous argument. The justices seem to believe, without doubt, that having the phrase "In God We Trust" on money does not constitute an endorsement of religion (and the plaintiff feels the need to separate the pledge issue from the money issue).
How could we get here? No one could possibly believe that writing "In God We Trust" on currency is not an endorsement of religion — it was certainly intended that way when first added during the Civil War. The only possible explanation is that the justices (and most of the country) believe that we are a Christian nation and that our laws should reflect that.
Some philosopher kings. Not even Supreme Court justices can be trusted to enforce separation of church and state.