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 ...
Yep, I think Stop the ACLU thought as I did. They should remember the maxim to always read the opinion first and not a synopsis that is handed to you.
This is now mediocre news.
The case they cited stands for the principle that if you get the relief you asked for, you won.... even though the case becomes meaningless at a later date. Essentially, he got relief from the time of the first decision until the Feds took over.
I hope so. I've been donating to one of the organizations that has been pursuing this case. As usual, the ACLU has megabucks and the appellants have donations from people who can only afford to give a little.
Fighting the ACLU is like fighting Planned Parenthood. Very much like David and Goliath, with Goliath being funded by the taxpayers.
So, will the cross be on Federal land or private land?
Is it highly likely this is the end of it?
[i.e. until the AntiChrist takes power overtly!]
That's an interesting 9th Circuit case, because the SCOTUS denied cert over the dissent of two justices (Rehnquist and White) who wrote an opinion stating their position that there is no statute supporting such a principle.
The man who tried to deal with this in congress is Duncan Hunter.
Hunter Introduces Legislation Protecting Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial
Washington, D.C. – Late last evening, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) introduced H.R. 5683, the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Protection Act. The legislation preserves the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, California by transferring possession of the Memorial to the federal government.
“The Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial has been a fixture of our local community for over 50 years, honoring veterans of all wars, including the Global War on Terrorism,” said Congressman Hunter. “Unfortunately, this Memorial and its proud history has been identified as offensive and in violation of the California State Constitution by liberal judges who have sided with a self-proclaimed atheist receiving legal and financial support from the ACLU.
“Despite its recognition as a National Veterans Memorial by Congress and the voters of San Diego, the City has been given until August to remove the Memorial or face fines for each day it continues to stand. This ruling ignores the mandate delivered by the people of San Diego County and turns this beloved Memorial into a political test case for liberal activists and their agenda.
“The fight to save the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial is not about religion. It’s about protecting a symbol of our freedom and honoring those who have chosen to defend it at all costs. Removing this long recognized and respected landmark is an insult to the men and women memorialized on its walls and the service and sacrifice of those who have worn a uniform in defense of our nation.
“It is important that we exhaust every possible option for preserving this revered Memorial and ensuring its continued presence atop Mt. Soledad. As part of this process, the legislation will supplement any administrative efforts to protect the Memorial.” (snip)
http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca52_hunter/pr_060627_hr5683.shtml
Yeah, it is. They dealt with more or less the same issue a couple of years later (1989) in a case involving Texas Teachers Assn (489 US 782), which I'm now trucking over to take a look at.
That's my Alma Mater...
Philip K Paulson, Plaintiff-Appellee and Society of Separationists Inc., Plaintiff
v.
City of San Diego, AKA City of San Diego, California, Defendant-Appellant and Mt. Soledad Memorial Association Inc., Defendant
Next it lists them as:
Philip K. Paulson, Plaintiff-Appellee and Society of Separationists Inc, Plaintiff
v.
City of San Diego, AKA City of San Diego, California, Defendant and Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, Defendant-appellant
Next as:
Philip K, Paulson Plaintiff-Appellee and San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad War Memorial, Appellant
v.
City of San Diego, AKA City of San Diego, California, Defendant and Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, Defendants
(If any of this helps)
Well... the fact that he CAN get fees doesn't mean that he WILL get fees. The Circuit court has to do a balancing act there. This whole thing re-raises the questions about the "private attorney general" provisions of the civil rights act, which are consistently being used (add a "mis" before that) by the ACLU in much the same way those California slick-suited shakedown artists were mis-using California's business license act, which had similar provisions. Californians corrected the latter situation by initiative... sadly there's no Federal initiative process.
I was wondering too about this. The U.S. Congress under the Republicans could have done something about the abuses of the power to sue by various "public interest" groups, who are then compensated even if they lose.
Read it more carefully. I'm no legal expert...but (shhh this is supposed to be secret) the guy who wrote this up...is very, very closely associated with the Alliance Defense Fund. I don't think it was interpreted wrong. I highly doubt he would go public with this as great news if it wasn't.
I hope Duncan Hunter is our next president. He's the best candidate out there.
Wonderful news, and I hope this is it!
Thanks for the ping cgk and yes more than a suprise from the 9th circus.
The ACLU types need to get a clue. Each time they think they have moved forward they are pushed back or at least a road block put up.
Am glad our side is not giving up.
Can't disagree with that!
http://www.gohunter08.com/
And .. the best revenge. The guy that brought the original suit against the cross DIED soon after it was determined that the cross WAS NOT GOING TO BE REMOVED.
God is able!!
"http://www.gohunter08.com/"
I'll save this in my personal files.
I was thinking that a nice revenge might be if the ACLU had to pay court costs, but to you, the best revenge is that God killed the atheist. In revenge. Presumably before the atheist was going to die of more natural causes, or it wouldn't be nearly such a fun, juicy death for you.
Celebrating someone's death is a risky business. Ascribing motives to God is also risky. Just make sure you keep whistling until you get past your own graveyard.
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.