High on a Hill Above San Diego, a Church-State Fight Plays Out

NYT ^ | Oct. 1, 2005 | By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD

[BigFinn]

SAN DIEGO - For more than 50 years, the Mount Soledad cross has stood sentry over this city, a 29-foot-tall white landmark that, from its panoramic perch atop one of the tallest hills for miles around, has played host to weddings, baptisms and quiet contemplation.

For 16 years, the Mount Soledad cross, now a part of a Korean War veterans memorial, has been a focus of bitter and still unresolved litigation. "This is the most beautiful piece of land in California, if not the country," said Paul Rodriguez, a resident smitten one afternoon by the exhilarating wind-swept views of the city, the Pacific and distant mountains.

But down below, the cross has stood planted in the middle of an epic legal battle for 16 years and, in the view of some partisans on both sides, is becoming an emblem of the struggle over religion in public life.

-snip-

The city has unsuccessfully appealed the court rulings, tried to sell the 15-by-15-foot sliver of land surrounding the cross, agreed to move the cross to a nearby church and then reneged on that deal, and put the issue on the ballot twice, most recently in July. In that referendum, three-quarters of voters approved a measure to transfer the land to the federal government as part of an effort by local congressmen to have the government preserve it as a war memorial.

The vote settled nothing; on Sept. 2 a judge issued a temporary restraining order stopping the transfer. At that point, the city attorney, Michael Aguirre, deputized a lawyer from a conservative Christian legal advocacy group to make the city's case that the cross should remain where it is, amid the 100-acre park.

[BigFinn]

Judge Patricia Kim Cowett, activist judge, strikes down Prop. A. ignoring 76% of San Diego voters. A perfect example of legislating from the bench. Activist judges are alive and well in San Diego.

[FairOpinion]

"San Diego County Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett says the move -- approved by voters in July -- violated the California Constitution.

Yim calls a "an unconstitutional preference of the Christian religion to the exclusion of other religions and religious beliefs in violation of the no preference clause of the California Constitution."

City Attorney Michael Aguirre warned that the cross measure on the July 26 special election ballot that the measure might not be constitutional."

===

What is the matter with these people?!

[Majic]

Aren't these people supposed to be dynamiting buddhas or something?

[HiTech RedNeck]

This is soooooooooooooo stupid.

[StonyBurk]

Whenanycourt violates the clean and unamiguous language of the Constitution a Fraud is perpetrated,and no-one is bound to obey it."State v.Sutton There are many legal precedents one could and all should point to that clearly suggest this
Judge is perpetrating Fraud. The modern myth of neutrality mandated by the way the court has interpreted the constitution for years is not and ought not be construed as anything but Fraud.All any need do is read the Late Justice Rhenquist in Wallace v. Jaffree-- or the Dissent of Arthur
Goldberg in Abington v. Schempp-or best yet read the freaking First Amendment(and how it was interpreted by the
men who wrote that instrument )and it becomes clear what these Judges are doing is a lot of things None of it Lawful-
And none of it upholding the US Constitution-by interpreting it as it was written and intended to be understoood by ALL.

[inquest]

Do you have a link for that State vs Sutton ruling? There are a number of cases from around the country with that title, so I didn't know where that came from.