Shouldn't they have asked the little girl?

The irony is almost too much to bear.

The little girl who was the subject of the "under God" lawsuit, it turns out, has no problem reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at school.

This according to her mother, Sandra Banning, who released a statement saying "I was concerned that the American public would be led to believe that my daughter is an atheist or that she has been harmed by reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words 'one nation under God.' We are practicing Christians and are active in our church."

Holy cow.

The lawsuit, of course, was filed by the 8-year-old second-grader's father, Michael Newdow, who claimed his daughter was being "injured" by being forced to listen to others recite the pledge in her California elementary school.

Our question is this: Did nobody ask the little girl?

How can a lawsuit progress to the second-highest court in the country without anybody ever stopping to ask the subject of the lawsuit whether it was, in fact, true?

The legal case hinged in large part on the question of whether there was an "injured party" who had standing to make a complaint. Now we're told by the mother the answer is no.

The great irony, however, is that a father would use his daughter -- and the federal court system -- to fight against government promotion of theism, so that he could preach his anti-religion views.

The moral of the story is that a church-going mother is able to instill in her child a value system no matter what government or the courts -- or a father more interested in politics than his own daughter -- say.

That's the liberty and justice to which we pledge allegiance.