The federal court decision declaring the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional caused an uproar. But it may also provide a window into a larger contempt for the judiciary that seems to be taking hold in George W. Bush’s Washington. The stormy legal battle after the 2000 presidential election, and the ever-nastier fights over nominations to the federal bench, risk eroding the courts’ standing among Democrats and Republicans alike. Discontent with the courts is particul

The federal court decision declaring the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional caused an uproar. But it may also provide a window into a larger contempt for the judiciary that seems to be taking hold in George W. Bush’s Washington. The stormy legal battle after the 2000 presidential election, and the ever-nastier fights over nominations to the federal bench, risk eroding the courts’ standing among Democrats and Republicans alike. Discontent with the courts is particularly strong in the current White House, which views the judiciary with more disdain than any in recent history. Bush has made no secret of his desire to curb judicial power, and especially the courts’ role in reviewing his conduct in the war on terrorism.

The pledge case itself may turn out to be a minor distraction. California’s Ninth Circuit, one of the nation’s most liberal courts, is also one of the most overturned–and its pledge decision is almost certain to be reversed down the road. But lost in the tumult over the ruling was a simple fact that helps to illuminate the larger dissatisfaction with the courts: as much as the ruling overreached, the California court was clearly taking its cues from a higher authority–the U. S. Supreme Court.

The California judges’ condemnation of the words "under God" …