"McElroy said he interpreted that to mean that if he wins in the appeals courts Kennedy would be willing to lift his order blocking removal."
Maybe Mister McElroy should have read a little better.
” He also said it was likely that four justices on the high court would be willing to review the case if the federal appeals court upholds Thompson's order."
Nothing there indicates that the SCOTUS would lift the block. Matter of fact, it's just the opposite.
Woo-Hoo! Chalk one up for Kennedy. Looks like he got this one right! We voted and keeping the Cross is the will of the people!
Kennedy has long believed that crosses, commandments, creches, etc., on public property do not violate the establishment clause. Now he actually has five votes to make his view the holding of the Court. O'Connor denied him and the conservatives on the Court that opportunity for years.
Good...
"Cross proponents"? Is this some new media/leftist word for CHRISTIANS? No matter what the final outcome of this case, the fact that a legal debate about whether or not this cross is "constitutional" has climbed all the way up to the Supreme Court is just another sign of how far down the toilet our country has been flushed by the leftists.
This should not even be an issue in America, a nation that was founded by Christians, built by Christians, has prospered on the moral, religious and cultural princples of Christianity, and and has survived on the blood of Christians.
AP on Yahoo
Supreme Court stay upheld in cross case
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060707/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_cross_dispute
WASHINGTON - The city of San Diego won a Supreme Court stay on Friday that blocks the removal of a large cross from city property.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the temporary stay he authorized earlier this week should protect the cross until the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments this fall in a long-running dispute over the cross.
Kennedy also took the unusual step of explaining his decision, in a four page opinion, and suggested that he and his colleagues may be interested in a broader review of the case.1
"The equities here support preserving the status quo while the city's appeal proceeds," he wrote. "Compared to the irreparable harm of altering the memorial and removing the cross, the harm in a brief delay pending the Court of Appeals' expedited consideration of the case seems slight."
A lower court judge had ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day. The judge ruled that the cross, a symbol of Christianity, was an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion over another.
The 29-foot cross, on a half-acre site atop Mount Soledad in the La Jolla area, had been contested in 1989 by Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran and atheist.
The Supreme Court refused three years ago to get involved in the dispute. Since then, Congress agreed to make the area a national veterans memorial, and San Diego residents voted to transfer the land to the federal government.
Kennedy, a California native, said, "Congress' evident desire to preserve the memorial makes it substantially more likely" the high court would agree to hear the case now.
The great thing about all of this is that it exposes Dim Dems for what they are not.
Americans.
Phillip Paulson, thank you for serving your country in your day. Unfortunately, today you are a narcissistic *ss.
Can someone help me here? Wasn't there a ruling or something that had to do with tradition that can be used as an argument here?
Hooray to http://www.thomasmore.org/
Fantastic! This case (and kicking the Boy Scouts off Balboa Park) is why I came up with my tagline.
Those homosexuals out there hate looking at that cross because it reminds them how sinful they are.
I hate to rain on anyone's parade here, but how much have the endless lawsuits, legal challenges, and running of a ballot initiative on this issue cost San Diego taxpayers?
I would think that it would be cheaper to simply sell the site to a private party (say the VOFW) and be done with it. Even if the site was sold at a public auction, it would probably have taken less effort to run a fundraising drive than all this. And keep in mind that so long as this is kept in the courts, the opposition isn't being forced to put it's money where it's mouth is.
The Mayor of San Diego should long ago have announced that the court's ruling was unconstitutional, that he was officially nullifying it, and would pay no fines that the court ordered. I don't understand how we as a nation has stooped so low, and to unquestioningly cede so much power to the Judiciary that it has not been given by our Constitution.
It's not a cross. Some people just build giant lower case "t's"
I really think we need to start a big push to remove idiot judges like this. How many millions of dollars has this ridiculous lawsuit cost? How did it ever get this far?
This bozo is actually a Nixon appointee. He has evidently been handing down bad decisions for an entire lifetime. I hate to think how many other stupid things he has accomplished over his 36 year career on the bench.