Will they beat it with their shoes?
Posted on 06/22/2006 1:44:05 PM PDT by RDTF
ANN ARBOR, MI – A three–judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stay Federal District Judge Gordon Thompson’s order to remove the Mt. Soledad Cross pending an appeal. Thus, the City of San Diego must remove the Cross by August 1, 2006, or face fines of $5,000 per day thereafter. In its decision, however, the Ninth Circuit scheduled oral arguments on the matter for the week of October 16, 2006, weeks after the Cross is to be removed. The 43- foot Cross was erected in 1954 and currently is the centerpiece of a national memorial honoring American veterans of all wars. The Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, has been fighting to save the Cross since 2004 when it received information that the private memorial association operating the memorial site and the City were about to agree to settle the case, which had been on going for 15 years, by removing the Cross.
(Excerpt) Read more at thomasmore.org ...
Where do we send donations to fund their $5,000 a day bill?
:)
Take it to the Supremes. Better chance there than with the 9th Circus...
Put the judges under the cross as they drop it.
They should sell the mountain to a private organization.
Like a church.
And yet the crescent "memorial" commemorating the 9-11 attacks continues.
Why couldn't, years ago, they have given the plot of land to someone for a $1 per year on the condition that no improvements be made upon it?
Two questions:
How do judges levy taxes like this,
and how do they collect them?
The Nutty Ninth strikes again
That's the really sick thing about it: It IS private!
Will they beat it with their shoes?
The liberal 9th Circuit court strikes again!
Should I infer from this that that would be an en banc hearing? If so, shouldn't they have stayed the lower court's order until the entire 9th has ruled? I'm not understanding what's gone on here.
What's more unbelievable:
>> Despite the fact that the ballot proposal passed by an astonishing 76% of the vote, State Court Judge Patricia Cowett ruled that Proposition A violated the California constitution. Her order is being appealed as well. <<
A Constitutional amendment is unconstitutional because the proposed constitution is different from the original. Duh, that's why we are changing it. If, however, the propsed constitution were not so different, however, courts would, and have, strike down the amendment for having no effect.
Sounds like a win for the Godless.
I think a 3 judge panel ruled on it. I think the next step will be the entire 9th Circuit court
This case seems headed for The Roberts' Court.
It's the 9th Circus. Hopefully, the Supremes will slap them down pretty quickly.
Oh, I see, this is viewed as "Congress making a law, establishing a religion".
Just how stupid do you have to be to make that leap?
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.