In the aftermath of the Pledge of Allegiance being ruled unconstitutional, only one organization was celebrating: the ACLU.

In a brief statement, the ACLU praised the 2-1 decision, saying in part, "[W]e believe the court's finding was correct and is consistent with recent Supreme Court rulings invalidating prayer at school events."

(Stephen Reinhardt, the other judge on the three-judge panel who sided with Judge Alfred T. Goodwin, is married to the president of the Los Angeles chapter of the ACLU.) (emphasis added)

With very few exceptions, the ACLU appears to be alone in its opinion. Less than 24 hours after issuing his decision, Judge Goodwin issued a stay, apparently backtracking because of public pressure for his outlandish decision.

Aside from the ACLU, reactions to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that called the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional were almost universally negative.

Ferdinand Fernandez, the dissenting judge on the three-judge panel, essentially asked in his separate opinion, "Why stop there?"

He found that under the logic of the ruling issued, "God Bless America," "The Star Spangled Banner" and "America the Beautiful" should also be banned in public, as each makes mention of God.

The U.S. Senate was in the middle of debating a defense bill. But when senators became aware of the decision, debating stopped, and a resolution condemning the Ninth Circuit decision, authored by Judge Alfred Goodwin was quickly and unanimously approved, 99-0.

Legal experts almost unanimously agreed that the decision has very little chance of survival. Even Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe, one of the most notoriously pro-abortion, anti-family figures in today's legal profession, predicted it would be overturned: "I would bet an awful lot on that," he said.

It will likely be reviewed by a larger 11-judge panel.

House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-TX), likewise condemned the decision. "The Ninth Circuit couldn't be more wrong on this one," he said. "A judge who believes the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional doesn't belong on the bench."

The Washington Post, which is normally not friendly to the pro-life, pro-family position, condemned the decision: "If the court were writing a parody, rather than deciding an actual case, it could hardly have produced a more provocative holding than striking down the Pledge of Allegiance while this country is at war."

The Post then predicted swift reversal, adding that even former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, who took the so-called "separation of church and state" more seriously than most judges, did not consider the Pledge of Allegiance to be in violation of the First Amendment.

On the other hand, the New York Times displayed remarkable aloofness. An editorial on the ruling claimed that usage of the words "under God" was "petty," and added, "We wish the words [under God] had not been added back in 1954. But just the way removing a well-lodged foreign body from an organism may sometimes be more damaging than letting it stay put, removing those words would cause more harm than leaving them in."

Jack Dunphy, an officer of the Los Angeles, California Police Department, said this is not the first time the Ninth Circuit has issued a ridiculous ruling:

"In ruling as it did this three-judge panel of the Ninth Circcuit has brought national focus to the burden borne by those of us who work in law enforcement in the nine western states over which the court has jurisdiction. This is only the latest in a series of decisions that illustrate the peculiar brand of jurisprudence issuing from this most peculiar of circuit courts."

Dunphy then detailed one case where another three-judge panel (featuring two of the judges on the panel that heard the Pledge of Allegiance case), where a ruling was issued that severely handicapped law enforcement officers in their line of work. (This particular ruling was later struck down by the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision.)

"The legal and political forces that have been striking at America's Christian heritage have been put on notice," said Janet Folger, national director of the CENTER FOR RECLAIMING AMERICA. "We the people will no longer put up with judges who take scissors and white-out to the U.S. Constitution."

Janet Folger, of the Center for Reclaiming America, has most interesting commentary also:

"First, when Al Gore ran for U.S. President in 2000, he said he wanted to appoint judges who believe in a "living, breathing Constitution." In other words, judges who really don't care what the Constitution says, and legislate from the bench. Judge Goodwin is that kind of judge.

"Second, this shows the continued importance of judicial appointments. Our current President wants to appoint judges who interpret the Constitution, rather than rewrite it, but unfortunately, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee has blocked over 40 well-qualified nominees for over a year, while judges like Mr. Goodwin continue to rule on important cases.

"Third, judges should no longer be held unaccountable for the decisions they make. There is a constitutional remedy for judges like Mr. Goodwin. It's called impeachment.