The American cemetary at Normandy. How much longer before the ACLU and the liberal wing of the Supreme Court order the crosses removed or taxpayer monies withddrawn to avoid offending atheists?
Posted on 05/03/2006 1:37:30 PM PDT by radar101
federal judge on Wednesday ordered the removal of the Mount Soledad cross from property owned by the city of San Diego within 90 days or he will fine the city $5,000 a day. “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,” said U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson.
Thompson first found the presence of the cross on city property unconstitutional in 1991 because it violated the separation of church and state.
Since then, his order, and the issue of the cross, has been subject to more than a decade of litigation, public debates and, in recent years, two public votes.
The lawyer who fought for the removal of the cross said he expects city officials to comply with the judge's order and have it removed.
“I don't think the city has its heart in taking more action,” attorney James McElroy said.
City officials were not immediately available for comment, but during an hour-long court hearing, a lawyer for the city said that people had voted for transfer of the land under the cross to the federal government.
That transfer, which a Superior Court judge found unconstitutional, is now on appeal, said Deputy City Attorney David Karlin. He said legal papers are due by the end of the month.
Litigation over the cross is probably not over.
A group formed last year to ask voters to approve transferring the property to the federal government is looking at the possibility of appealing Thompson's decision.
Philip Paulson, the man who sued back in 1989 for removal of the cross, declined comment after Wednesday's ruling, saying he would let his lawyer speak for him.
The concrete, 29-foot cross has stood on its La Jolla hill since 1954,though the first cross was built there in 1913.
I thought Soledad was an infobabe on CNN.
...and while he's at it,shouldn't the judge require the city to change its name?
"unconstitutional in 1991 because it violated the separation of church and state."
There's no such thing as separation of church and state. Like most Liberals, the man is a liar.
There have been at least two attempts that I know of to transfer the land to other entities so that it wouldn't be on public land. Judges in those cases ruled that those attempts to transfer the land were unconstitutional because proper legal procedures weren't followed, and because it was unconstitutional to transfer the land to an entity which would give preference to keeping the cross on the land.
Can other Freepers help me out here, with details of the attempts to transfer this land out of public ownership which were derailed by judges?
If the libs manage to get the cross removed, imagine the statement. This could backfire on them. The monument would still be there and the emptiness of the cross would be powerful. Everyone would know it was defaced because of liberals. The lack of a cross could be a monument in and of itself. Maybe a bad analogy, but when you see the plots where the World Trade Towers used to stand, you immediately clarify who the enemy is. Same feeling, different monument.
k.
It has been tried, and the Supreme Court has already said "no." But maybe the change in the court will change the outcome:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=21952
The mayor should refuse to pay the fine as it would be supporting a particular religion with taxes. And that would be violating the separation of church and state, don't ya know.
Will this anger illegals in any way?
Their opinion appears to matter most of all today in America.
The real problem lies in the statement itself.
It is not separation of church and state.
The fathers of our country were discussing issues and were concerned over the separation of 'the powers of church and state'.
NOWHERE in the constitution or bill of rights is there any law or writ stating separation of church and state.
We are a land where freedom of religion OF and not from is the law of the land.
Nothing to define, since it doesn't exist in any legitimate legal document. The only thing in the Constitution that addresses this has to do with the prohibition the FEDERAL Government has on declaring a specific (Judeo-Christian) sect as the "official" religion (to avoid a situation of the President serving as head of the church of America, a la the King/Queen of England serving as head of the church of England). This is a monument that the people want, case closed. Any of these asshat "jurists" that define it as anything beyond what is states above should be removed from the bench immediately.
We cannot eliminate that which does not exist.
It's a federal judge, he's there for life.
Conversely, nothing in the Constitution prohibited the individual states from adopting official religions, either. It was entirely a state, local, and individual decision.
For 5000 a day they could hire a crowd to stalk the judge with protest signs.
The American cemetary at Normandy. How much longer before the ACLU and the liberal wing of the Supreme Court order the crosses removed or taxpayer monies withddrawn to avoid offending atheists?
The name of the mountain itself derives from "Our Lady of Solitude." It's only reasonable that every place with such name origins be renamed with a random alphanumeric sequence purged of all mystical significations.
So what would happen if he did this and the city simply refused to pay? I mean, what could this robed tyrant do? Could he send "someone" to collect the money from "someone"? Who would that be? How would they get the money? Could the city officials call in the local police for protection from the judicial thugs?
I ask this because in my state a lawsuit was filed concerning funding for public schools. They plaintiffs alleged that the existing method was "unfair" and "unconstitutional". They won their case and the state supreme court upheld it. The legislature changed the funding method, the plaintiffs refiled their lawsuit saying that nothing had really changed, won the case again and the state SC upheld it. The legislature threw up their hands and gave up playing this "bring me a rock" game. The Court said the state was still "out of compliance" with the court order. They screamed and yelled and jumped up and down and held their breaths, but the legislature basically said, sorry, we tried. And the whole thing stopped there. I'm wondering up a similar outcome might happen here.
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.