Punting based on standing is not in my view a good omen. If five votes were there to just do it, it would have been done. The Chief Justice is the real stickler on standing (along with Seuter, but well Seuter is Seuter), and he found standing. I suspect that either Kennedy or O'Connor (my guess is O'Connor; Kennedy is less secular than O'Connor, although these days the premier loose cannon on the court), just didn't want to face having to truncate the pledge, if there was a way to avoid it. So my guess, is 5-4 against using that word in the pledge. But it is all highly speculative, and I am just an obscure lawyer that is never paid to litigate Constitutional issues. I have to make my living in more prosaic ways.
Justice O'Connor joined Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent and wrote a very detailed concurrence to make clear that she would've kept the wording as it is. It was Justice Kennedy that punted just as he punted in the political gerrymander case earlier this year.
Liberals didn't want to give Bush an election issue?