Posted on 06/21/2006 5:33:51 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
SAN DIEGO
A three-judge federal panel on Wednesday rejected a last-ditch appeal by the city of San Diego to keep a giant cross standing on city property after a 17-year legal tussle.
The city is under federal court order to move the 29-foot-tall cross from a La Jolla hilltop before Aug. 2 or face $5,000 daily fines. The failed appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals was intended to stay that order and allow the cross to remain standing until appeals currently pending in state courts can be heard.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre said that Wednesday's ruling, issued without comment, "would force us to carry out that order."
The fight over the 52-year-old cross began with a lawsuit filed in 1989 by an atheist living in San Diego. U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. ruled in May that removal of the cross was "long overdue" and invoked his own 1991 opinion ordering the cross taken down to stop the city from displaying an unconstitutional preference for one religion over another.
Aguirre, however, said he was scheduled to meet with Mayor Jerry Sanders on Thursday to discuss appealing the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. He said that he believes the placement of the cross is unconstitutional, but argued that the city had a duty to exhaust its legal options in order to respect the will of voters who approved a 2005 ballot measure designed to preserve it.
"Voters passed the initiative so our obligation now is to try and defend it," Aguirre said.
The Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal on behalf of the cross in 2003 after the city tried to sell the property to a private buyer. Federal courts repeatedly blocked the sale, saying the transactions were designed to favor a buyer who would leave the cross in place.
The cross was dedicated in 1954 as a memorial to veterans of the Korean War, and a private association maintains a concentric granite-and-brick veterans' memorial on the land surrounding the cross.
Sanders has argued that the cross is an integral part of the war memorial and deserves the same exemption to government-maintained religious symbols granted to other war monuments such as Arlington National Cemetery.
In recent weeks Sanders has asked President Bush to intervene in the matter, joining a request by U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, chair of the House Armed Services Committee.
On Wednesday, Sanders issued a statement saying he was disappointed by the appeals court decision, but he reiterated his commitment to obeying the court order and sparing his cash-strapped city from paying any fines.
"I have no intention of violating Judge Thompson's order if a resolution cannot be reached by Aug. 1," Sanders said.
They've sold it 3 times now and the courts negated the sale each time because it was obviously going to someone to save the cross, so that's a non-starter...
Excuse me? However, what he CAN DO, is sign an EXECUTIVE ORDER, designating the cemetery FEDERAL PROPERTY.
If Clintoon could, with the stroke of a pen, "Federalize" 60 million acres, I can't imagine why W could not do same with a few acres of a cemetery.
Finis. Case closed.
Next they'll demand removing the San from Diego.
Not so. See my post #43
Absolutely. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH already.
Some here have suggested an executive order.
So there is a litmus test for potential buyers? Anyone that would keep the cross is automatically eliminated as a buyer?
"Excuse me? However, what he CAN DO, is sign an EXECUTIVE ORDER, designating the cemetery FEDERAL PROPERTY."
It's not a cemetery ...
"So there is a litmus test for potential buyers? Anyone that would keep the cross is automatically eliminated as a buyer?"
If you sell a piece so small that it has no other valid use, you are limiting your buyers to those who wish to keep it, and the City would be showing a bias. If you sell a bigger area that WOULD be of some use, the price would skyrocket.
Think giving it away was tried also.
Hhmmm ... Wonder if the city can simply redesignate the area under the cross as a "surplus property storage yard". ?
I don't think the courts can order the City to destroy property that they might be able to sell someday.
San Diego dosen't even know how much property it owns, so I'm sure it would take quite a long time for this to come up for sale.
Sounds like a good idea at first, but I think there would have to be open bidding and all those fat hollywood wallets would open wide. Then there would be a gigantic statue of chairman mao there. Never underestimate the fervor of the atheist left.
Considering that he just declared an area of the Pacific Ocean bigger than Texas a "National Monument" he could do the same with this. The cross would then have to stay.
The 9th Circuit has no jurisdiction. It is time for the City Officials to tell the 9th to GTH and order the city police department to arrest anyone who tries to interfer in legitimate city business.
Then the city can petition the State Atty General to arrest and prosecute the members of the 9th.
And they can request the Governor to do the same.
Then the City Officials can raise a flag with a Cross and tell the 9th to GTH!
"Here I stand, I can change nothing!" ("Hier stand ich, ich kann nicht anders"; Martin Luther, Wuertenberg, 1519?)
Bush will fight for "freedom" in Iraq, but I don't expect him to fight for veterans right to have this cross in San Diego. Wouldn't be PC.
"This is why it's so important that we send troops to invade Muslim countries in the Middle East."
Sorry - I don't believe that the U.S. should start religious crusades as government policy.
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.