For that matter, even among Christian clergy, how does an instrument of the federal government have authority to decide which minister is "true" and which isn't?

It's about time Congress stopped pretending that prayers in Congress don't violate the Establishment Clause.

What? So the only acceptable text is Christian? Only Christian ministers are worthy of speaking? I looked, and there are Muslims and Buddhists in Congress, and Jews, and Mormons, and something called "unaffiliated" which is maybe P.C. for atheist, so why is Fr. Conroy discriminating against atheists and all the other non-Christians?

Personally, I end the whole religious mysticism, and instead, invite school kids to come and read a selection from our Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our other important historical documents, as a reminder of why those politicians are elected.

for yet another pointless lawsuit on the fast track to nowhere

If he was short on ideas, he might have lifted, rewritten, and cobbled together bits from other guest invocations,

asking them ... May we reject .. selfishness, greed, and pride. May we avoid apathy, ridicule, and division ...

or expressing a hope that as Representatives ... debate and vote on legislation that will determine the future path of this country they might open their hearts and minds to the needs of all people ... and become especially aware of those who are ignored or forgotten, the downtrodden and marginalized ...

or reminding them that Collectively, brothers and sisters, you are a tapestry of America, a beautiful quilt of diversity and reminding them that the measure of society is how we treat the most vulnerable: the orphan, the widow, the stranger in our midst

or encouraging ... leaders of this Nation to fulfill their elected duties with mercy and justice in a sacrificial spirit for the common welfare ...

But instead he makes the mistake of mentioning himself twice and emphasizes the issues of his own conscience:

Celebrating the wondrous fact that the sovereign authority of our great nation is not a monarch, lord, supreme master or any power higher than “We, the people of these United States,” and recognizing that we Americans, a proudly rebellious people, fought a Revolutionary War to shatter the bonds of tyranny, let us rejoice in the inalienable liberty of conscience our forefathers and foremothers risked their lives to establish and our countrycontinues to defend against those enemies who despise freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of thought.

An invocation is meant to invoke the assistance and guidance of someone outside of ourselves. In the United States, our “higher power” is the authority the electorate has provisionally bestowed upon the guidance of our representatives, who work not for a king or dictator, but for the public good.

Representing tens of millions of good Americans who are not religious and millions of patriotic citizens who do not believe in a god, I cannot invoke a spirit or supernatural agency before this esteemed body.

But I can invoke the “spirit” of the founding patriot Thomas Paine, a nonChristian deist who argued for Common Sense over dogma.

I'm talking about the whole idea of a secular government entity needing inspiration from mythology.

Or just the atheists?

to deprive the plaintiff of an alleged constitutional right to deliver an invocation on the House floor and materially injured him by thereby withholding from him the benefit of attendant publicity

A first question is whether there can be a constitutional right to address the House from its floor.

If such a right exists, it certainly extends to all US citizens. There are at least 142 million registered voters in the US. So if there were a constitutional right to deliver an invocation on the House floor, and if the House allowed 2000 invocations annually (8 per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year), it would take over 70000 years to grant all US citizens the exercise of this right. In reality, since the House is currently in session about 120 days annually and only has a single daily invocation, it would take much longer: a million years is not an unrealistic estimate

So there cannot be such a constitutional right

A second question is whether the plaintiff has suffered a litigable damage

With regard to the deprivation of publicity, we should note that the alleged injury is speculative and diffuse. It is speculative, insofar as the plaintiff claims to be damaged by the withholding of publicity not yet provided, from which the plaintiff could (but would not necessarily) benefit; it is diffuse, insofar as the plaintiff in this regard is not deprived in a manner differing from the same deprivation of benefit by most other Americans. Suing for speculative damages cannot succeed, unless an extremely high threshhold is met; suing for damages, on a policy that diffusely affects almost every citizen to the same degree, has no chance of success in the courts.

In a suit, for interfering with the plaintiff's free exercise rights or with the plaintiff's free speech rights, there must be evidence that the chaplain and staff somehow prevented the plaintiff from freely exercise of his "religion" (which under current law would, of course, in this case include non-religious views serving the same role in the plaintiff's life as a religion would, were he religious) or that chaplain and staff somehow intruded on the plaintiff's exercise of free speech. But chaplain and staff have no intruded on the plaintiff in any fashion: they neither attempt to compel from him speech or act he finds abhorrent, nor do they under color of law attempt either to suppress his non-religious views or to keep him from practicing such views in his life

To summarize, the plaintiff will not be found to have standing, for easily-understood reasons

Which is in effect, many have probably thought, a very minimal presence. The mouthing of a few words, without legal commitment.

Of course, many of us object even to that. But if those objections are to be effective, then this Supreme Court decision and language should be addressed, or circumvented: the apparent acceptance of "Ceremonial deism."

Arguably though, the court did not even endorse it. But merely described it. Without endorsement....