There are no words for what I think of the judge in this case.
Is the city precluded from selling the plot of land upon which rests the cross?
IF the issue is the cross being on federal land...then what could be the objection to transferring the land to a non government owner? Federal property is routinely sold and transferred.
This surely sounds like judicial hostility to religion, and a spiteful judge for sure...similar to the judges' personal animus against Terry Schindler's family.
Has the self-same atheist vet sued to have crosses removed from Arlington and other Veteran's cemeteries? Also maintained at federal/state expense.
This will sound pretty vindictive but I like the image.
A lot of money is being spent on this case and, while there is a slight, very slight, chance that the judge will be reversed on appeal, the more likely outcome is that the cross will come down.
Why not let the cross come down, buy the house directly across the street from the judge's house (make the present owners an offer they simply can't refuse), tear it down, create an appropriate park, and put it up there? If necessary, get a special use zoning ruling to permit it's installation. Now certainly neither the judge or the athiests could object. It would, after all, be on private land. And it would be a fitting memorial to one of the judge's most important cases.
Not likely to happen but fun (for me anyway) to imagine.
Can't Arnold do anything?
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
the emblem of suffering and shame;
and I love that old cross where the dearest and best
for a world of lost sinners was slain.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,
till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
and exchange it some day for a crown.
Grow a pair Sanders, and tell this judge to stick it.
(Denny Crane: "Every one should carry a gun strapped to their waist. We need more - not less guns.")