I’m not sure which is more arbitrary:
1) the ruling on this case based on the contemporary “interpretation” and defense of the words of the Constitution [the separation of church and state habeen used so silence Christianity in the public for the last 50 years - why change now?], or
2) the argument of the athiests that not mentioning God is somehow ‘not a religious statement’, or
3) the decision that the president gets to choose what to included in an inaugural ceremony [so if one man decided to take out any and all religious elements that would be okay, but not for the courts to rule on?], or
4) the statement that if something “is not a live controversy” then it cannot “avail itself of the judicial powers of the federal courts” and is therefore, “moot” [it has to be controversial to be relevant and judged upon?].
The reality is that this is just another example of Religious Pluralism trumping the status quo. Athiests step over the line when they don’t go after the overtly Christian ethic. After all, a little bit of religious salad on the plate is healthy for everyone.