Posted on 01/12/2007 6:28:14 PM PST by Jay777
From the 9th Circuit: Opinion
1. The appeal by the City of the district court's May 3, 2006 order (the one that said the city must rip down the cross by Aug. 1, 2006 or face a $5,000/day fine) to enforce a December 3, 1991 injunction under California constitutional authority is dismissed as moot.
2. The appeal of the district court's denial of intervention, filed by the San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, is also dismissed as moot.
3....
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
WOW this is great news - and this is from the 9th Circus? I can hardly believe it.
Bump!!!
So we have the Church of Scientology to thank for this? Oh well, I'll celebrate anyway. :) WOOHOO!!!!!
This isn't anything I'd call good because they dismissed it simply because the land ownership was transferred.
Sounds like good news. Do I understand this as possibly suggesting that the ACLU will have to pay attorney's fees for the cross defenders?
YEP!
It looks to me that the court is saying that a determination should be made to determine if those who brought the lawsuit should be entitled to fees. In this case, I would believe it would be the ACLU.
PING!
Woo Hoo!!
The court is referring to the City when it says "plaintiff-appellee" I believe.
The court dismissed the city's appeal as moot.
It's important for all to read this closely.
1. The court dismissed the city's appeal as moot. (Makes perfect sense given what has transpired)
2. The appeal by the San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial was also dismissed as moot. (Again, makes perfect sense given what has transpired)
3. The case is sent back to the lower (district court) with the instructions to erase the order enforcing the injunction. (Good news; This also makes perfect sense, but one never knows with the 9th Circuit)
4. The case is sent back down to the district court judge to decide whether the city should be entitled to any money. (Good news, but expected given the above.)
Here's the money quote re: the feds taking control....
"The legislative taking immediately divested the City of
any interest in the war memorial, see Kirby Forest Indus., Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1, 5 (1984), and the United States is not subject to state constitutional authority. Accordingly, the May 3, 2006 order is no longer enforceable, and the appeal is DISMISSED as moot."
B I N G O !
Looking at the PDF, I think you and Cicero are right, and believe me, I hope so!!!!
You're right. They sent it back to let the lower court decide whether Paulson gets attorneys fees.
No, having looked at the opinion, you're right. Unbelieveable!
I was way wrong on #4. I hadn't read the full opinion yet and was just going by the very bare bones that Stop the ACLU had.
I'm sort of shocked!
A most excellent ping. Made my day. I would like to see the ACLU pay all the fees for the years and years of useless litigation. The litigators and the judges should also be punished also for their ridiculous rulings. Otherwise, they will pop up again with some other lawsuit. They must face reprisals that hit them BIG in the pocket book.
In 1989, Athesist, Philip Paulson and Howard Kreisner filed suit in Federal court to have the cross moved off public land. “We need to attack Jesus!”
– atheist Philip Paulson, who filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989.
U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr., May 4, 2006, “It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this Court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad Cross on City property,”
Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Cowett, maintenance of the cross is an “unconstitutional preference of religion.”
Cowett also said transferring ownership of the 43-foot cross and surrounding property to the federal government is an “unconstitutional aid to religion.”
In a July 26, 2005, special election, 76 percent of San Diego voters cast ballots for Proposition A.
Today the will of the people has been upheld. Good work and proof that the ACLU and many judges do not know what they are doing and have an agenda!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.