Just in time for the Supreme Court nomination processes, a US District Court Judge rules public school recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional on grounds of separation of church and state.
The snap analysis is that this puts the issue of judicial activism square in the spotlight of the confirmation process. At this point, it is a sure thing that this decision is going to be headed for the High Court, and that many people are going to want to know how the present and future nominees are going to decide on such a case.
This is where the anti-acitivists had better be careful. If they wish to stick by the "Ginsburg Rule" where it is improper for a nominee to pre-judge cases from the witness table, then they must stick by that principle when it comes to the inevitable pledge case. They'll get nailed with Roe v. Wade questions if they open that door. (If you're wondering: no relation so far as I know)