Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge halts Mount Soledad cross transfer (Voters: "of the people by the people just not YOU people")
SD Union Tribune ^ | 9-2-05 | Vigil & Kucher

Posted on 09/02/2005 1:15:34 PM PDT by cgk

Judge halts Mount Soledad cross transfer

Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com  Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article  Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article  View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site  


UNION-TRIBUNE

12:41 p.m. September 2, 2005


JAMES BAIRD / Union-Tribune

As votes were counted in the July 26 special election, the setting sun illuminated the cross on Mount Soledad.
SAN DIEGO – A Superior Court judge on Friday issued a temporary restraining order barring the city from transferring the Mount Soledad cross to the federal government under the deal voters overwhelmingly approved in San Diego's July special election.

Judge Patricia Yim Cowett issued a tentative 34-page ruling in the case, which questioned the constitutionality of Proposition A. The measure called for the city to hand the cross over to the federal government to be part of a national veterans memorial.

Cowett told the lawyers to return to court Oct. 3 to present their arguments regarding her opinion, which is filled with 24 pages of citations of case law.

She ruled that "the transfer is again an unconstitutional preference of the Christian religion to the exclusion of other religions and non-religious beliefs," in violation of the state constitution."

Cowett also ruled that the city's attempt to transfer the land to the federal government without compensation "for the purpose of saving the cross is also an unconstitutional aid to the Christian religion."

The judge found that memorial has predominantly "a religious purpose," and noted that secular war memorial events and adornments at the site were added only after legal challenges was threatened or initiated.

"To maintain the memorial, as it is presently, would demonstrate the government's lack of neutrality as to religion, shows a preference for one religion to the exclusion of other religions and non-religious beliefs, and aids one religion," she wrote. "To so rule does not attempt to, nor does it actually, demonstrate hostility to religion."

It's the latest twist in the long legal saga involving the 29-foot cross, which sits on city-owned land.

James McElroy, the attorney for Philip Paulson, the atheist who sued more than a decade ago to have the cross removed, said the judge ruled in his client's favor on the three key issues: two potential breaches of the state constitution and one of the federal constitution.

"I certainly expected this result," he said. "The law demanded this result."

City Attorney Michael Aguirre and several council members had warned before the vote that Proposition A would not stand up to a legal challenge.

The short-handed council – now at six members because of the departures of former Mayor Dick Murphy and two councilmen convicted on federal corruption charges – needs five votes to pass any decisions. McElroy doubts enough votes supporting an appeal of the judge's ruling can be gathered.

"The city is the only party that can appeal," he said. "I don't think the city is going to want to appeal. It's going to cost them a ton of money for their time and effort."

Proposition A was passed in July by nearly 76 percent of San Diego voters, easily surpassing the two-thirds approval required. Just days before the July election, Cowett had ruled that the measure needed more than a simple majority to pass because the city charter requires a two-thirds approval for any change to the use of park land.

The measure called for the city to donate the cross, a set of memorial walls and the land around the La Jolla display to the U.S. Interior Department as a national veterans memorial.

The cross was built in 1954 to honor Korean War veterans. Granite walls bearing memorial plaques honoring all veterans were erected around it in 2000. The proposition was the third time since 1992 that San Diego voters were asked to authorize a transfer of the cross from city-owned land.

In 1991, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. ruled that having the cross on city land violated the state constitution. An injunction barring the cross from the park land was put on hold while the sides tried to find a solution.

Federal courts struck down two sales of the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which built and maintains the site as a veterans memorial. San Diego voters rejected a third sale in November.

The City Council put Proposition A on the ballot after a successful petition drive forced a reconsideration of a March vote against the federal land transfer.

Paulson first challenged the presence of the cross on public land in 1989.



TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: cross; jamesmcelroy; judgislators; judicialactivism; lamontewell; michaelaguirre; mountsoledad; patriciayimcowett; pdiddyewell; philippaulson; ruling; sandiego; soledadcross
Same judge previously ruled AT THE MIDNIGHT HOUR that a 2/3 approval was required for the measure to pass...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20050721-1751-soledad.html

It passed OVERWHELMINGLY by 76%.

1 posted on 09/02/2005 1:15:35 PM PDT by cgk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cgk

What a bastard that judge is.


2 posted on 09/02/2005 1:21:40 PM PDT by bahblahbah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk

I guess this idiot beeyotch has never been to Arlington! I would get banned if I said what I really think.


3 posted on 09/02/2005 1:21:54 PM PDT by ohioman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Let's keep this in mind when we start to re-shape the courts.


4 posted on 09/02/2005 1:22:15 PM PDT by jmaroneps37 (The quisling ratmedia: always eager to remind us of why we hate them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah

Redundant Judicial Tyranny


5 posted on 09/02/2005 1:24:13 PM PDT by radar101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cgk

You voters forgot about ole Catch 22


6 posted on 09/02/2005 1:25:30 PM PDT by kimoajax (Rack'em & Stack'em)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk
Maybe they will rule the prayers at refugee camps illegal.

surprised the atheists haven't found a judge to rule against the prayers.

7 posted on 09/02/2005 1:28:28 PM PDT by dts32041 (Shinkichi: Massuer, did you see that? Zatôichi: I don't see much)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Ignore her.


8 posted on 09/02/2005 1:30:38 PM PDT by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk

The judge says it excludes other religions.Guess what!It is supposed to!The founding fathers stated this country and its laws were based on judeao/christian values,NOT OTHER VALUES.Besides,i question the legality of any court to rule on such a matter because the liberal element themselves state,there is a seperation of church and state and What is a court?What if this were reversed and the church had the power to rule on government matters?


9 posted on 09/02/2005 1:35:16 PM PDT by INSENSITIVE GUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk
"I certainly expected this result," he said. "The law demanded this result."

Well, then, the law is an ass (and so is McElroy).

10 posted on 09/02/2005 1:40:30 PM PDT by chimera
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
I say "Deport" her to "Mogadishu on 'Ol Miss"...let her see if the denizens have respect for the laws...because I have had it with these Robed Nazgul that keep RIGGING the system until they win, and then demand Staes Juris to SEAL their evil rulings!

Sorry, Judge...B.I.T.S. is coming.

11 posted on 09/02/2005 1:48:00 PM PDT by Itzlzha ("The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cgk

We beat the Commie, atheist bass turds in the "Cold War." We can beat them here too. What is a Yim anyway?


12 posted on 09/02/2005 1:53:20 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
She's a little sh-t, female, minority. Probably a product of the UC systems here in California. Still uses her maiden name so as to maximize minority recognition and benefits. I've seen these people my entire life and they are absolutely major-league twits.

Of course, you all know this is a family website so I'm not saying what I really feel.

13 posted on 09/02/2005 2:02:45 PM PDT by tom h
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cgk
City Att. Mike Aguire has been practically begging the judge and the annoyed atheist's lawyer to take this action. His office did finally deliver the paperwork to the City Manager's office, however.

In my opinion, this hault was made possible by the City Manager dragging his feet on finally signing the papers:

City Hall
202 C Street, MS9A
San Diego, CA 92101

Phone: (619) 236-6363
Fax: (619) 236-6067
citymanager@sandiego.gov
City Manager contact form

14 posted on 09/02/2005 2:20:07 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Cindy Sheehan: "All You Are Saying Is Give APPEASEMENT A Chance!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bahblahbah
Her 2004 election results (no one ran against her!):

Superior Court -- Office No. 1
2235 of 2235 precincts - 100 percent

Patricia Yim Cowett - 100 percent

----

I happened across a website for "California Women's Lawyers"

CWL Founders/Pioneers

"Some people say that you shouldn't tempt fate
And with them I would not disagree,
But I never learned nothing from playing it safe;
I say fate should not tempt me."
- Mary-Chapin Carpenter, I Take My Chances

We gratefully acknowledge the women lawyers whose passion for the advancement of women contributed to the establishment and leadership of California Women Lawyers

Among the names listed:

Justice Rose E. Bird
Hon. Patricia Yim Cowett
Rep Lynn Schenk (D)

15 posted on 09/02/2005 2:33:37 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Cindy Sheehan: "All You Are Saying Is Give APPEASEMENT A Chance!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cgk

Yet again! Legislating from the bench and piss on the people! The "people" voted and the court said "Silly people, you don't know what you want! I, and only I, know what's good for you!"


16 posted on 09/02/2005 3:47:38 PM PDT by Road Warrior ‘04 (Kill 'em til they're dead! Then, kill 'em again!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cgk
Yeah - and by this judge's logic, we should uproot all the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery because quote, "it constitutes an unconstitutional establishment of religion." Are idiotic judges like this born or made?

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
17 posted on 09/03/2005 7:54:03 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson