Judges are bound by the rulings of their superior courts.

Karlton said he was bound by precedent of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in 2002 ruled in favor of Sacramento atheist Michael Newdow that the pledge is unconstitutional when recited in public schools.

Of course, the 9th circuit was simply upholding Supreme Court precedent, and Clarence Thomas (perhaps the most conservative guy on the court these days) agrees:

Justice Thomas voted to uphold the Pledge of Allegiance on the merits against an Establishment Clause challenge…Yet he specifically said that the Ninth Circuit's decision was "based on a persuasive reading of [the Court's] precedent."

So you can imagine how comments like this annoy the crap out of me:

This is an extraordinary and blatant display of judicial activism," Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary

Conservatives accuse this Court of judicial activism for upholding the ruling of a superior Court? This sort of antilogic seeks to undermine the very rule of law in the minds of people who buy into it. This is not a responsible way to play politics.

On the meaning of Judicial Activism.