Does pledging allegiance to "one nation under God" constitute an "establishment of religion"?

That's the question before the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the plaintiff, Michael Newdow, is not only representing himself, but arguing his first courtroom case. From the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

The day in court was clearly dominated by Newdow, an emergency room doctor with legal training but no prior courtroom experience. A lively back-and-forth with the justices' quick legal minds can reduce even the most experienced attorneys' arguments to rubble, but Newdow often appeared to be in control of the debate.

Using a mix of emotional appeal and demonstrated knowledge of the court's precedents, Newdow laid out an argument that the justices seemed to have difficulty attacking.

Newdow even drew an uncharacteristic laugh from the court audience when, in an exchange with Chief Justice William Rehnquist, he argued that Congress' inclusion of the words "under God" in the pledge didn't draw more objection in 1954 because "atheists can't get elected to public office."

Unfortunately, there is a side issue which may muddy the waters and allow the Court to rule on this case while ducking the Big Question:

Terrence Cassidy, the lawyer for Elk Grove, hammered at Newdow's standing to hear the case.

"The question is what is in the best interest of the child, and in custody disputes, the court decides which parents has decision-making power," Cassidy said. Sandra Banning, the mother and legal guardian of Newdow's daughter, is a born-again Christian and doesn't approve of the child's involvement in the case.

It will be an anticlimax if the Supremes duck ruling on the Big Question by hiding behind the fig-leaf of a domestic difference of opinion.