Because I know you love to hear me blather on about this case...

Looks like they're going to hear the case after all, and actually make a ruling on the principles involved:

But justices could dodge the issue altogether if they decide that Newdow needed the mother's consent, because she has primary custody.

Rehnquist said that the issues raised in the case "certainly have nothing to do with domestic relations." And, Justice David H. Souter said that Newdow could argue that his interest in his child "is enough to give him personal standing.

Sounds like they want to actually hash out the merits of this one. Good. I wouldn't have thought they would have agreed to hear the case in the first place if they were just going to throw it out based on Newdow's legal parental standing.

The story doesn't contain much of the content of the proceedings, but this is the best exchange so far:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist noted that Congress unanimously added the words "under God" in the pledge in 1954.

"That doesn't sound divisive," he said.

"That's only because no atheists can be elected to office," Newdow responded.

Some in the audience erupted in applause in the courtroom, and were threatened with expulsion by the chief justice.

Heh. :)