Posted on 07/03/2006 11:36:51 AM PDT by Pukin Dog
Edited on 07/03/2006 12:00:01 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court intervened Monday to save a large cross on city property in southern California.
A lower court judge had ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight.
Lawyers for San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial said in an appeal that they wanted to avoid the "destruction of this national treasure." And attorneys for the city said the cross was part of a broader memorial that was important to the community.
The 29-foot cross, on San Diego property, sits atop Mount Soledad. A judge declared it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The cross, which has been in place for decades, was contested by Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran and atheist.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court had refused to get involved in the long-running dispute between Paulson and the city.
Kennedy granted the stay to the city and the cross' supporters without comment pending a further order from him or the entire court.
The cross was dedicated in 1954 as a memorial to Korean War veterans, and a private association maintains a veterans memorial on the land surrounding it.
Mayor Jerry Sanders has argued that the cross, sitting atop Mt. Soledad in La Jolla, is an integral part of the memorial and deserves the same exemptions to government-maintained religious symbols as those granted to other war monuments.
In May, U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson, Jr., ordered the city to take down the 29-foot cross before Aug. 2 or pay daily fines of $5,000.
Thompson's ruling, which he described as "long overdue," found the cross to be an unconstitutional display of government preference of one religion over another.
Last year, San Diego voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot proposition to transfer the land beneath the cross to the federal government. The measure was designed to absolve the city of responsibility for the cross under the existing lawsuit. But a California Superior Court judge found the proposition to be unconstitutional.
15 out of 18 9th-circuit rulings were struck down by the USSC. The majority of the time, the rulings were unanimous. Four times, the court overturned the lower court without even hearing the case.
Let's hope this case is finally decided in favor of those who want to keep the memory of the fallen buried there from being tarnished by this idiotic liberals.
It's just a stay. They're not hearing the case.
>> I always wondered what happened to Tone Loc. <<
Funky Cold Miranda...
No, but they ARE interfering in what is as yet an issue for the 9th circuit. Given that they almost ALWAYS strike down 9th-circuit rulings, stepping into the case says to the judges of the 9th: "We're watching you. Do the right thing."
But how much will we bet that the cross is allowed to stand on the vague grounds that it's been there for fifty years and any standing cross less than that has to go.
Or the cross is 29 feet high and any standing cross less than that height has got to go.
And yes I'm being sarcastic, but SCOTUS has so emanated into the penumbra that their doesn't seem to be any clear cut decisions.
Amen. They're not atheists. They're antitheists.
What kind of reprobate would make such a ruling?
The stay is pretty much SOP. It has nothing to do with the 9th Circuit; it would've been issued regardless. And the Court doesn't "almost ALWAYS strike down 9th-circuit rulings". The 9th Circuit decides thousands of cases each year. The Court overturns maybe 1.5% of those.
Very good news.
2. I meant that the Supreme Court overruled most of the cases it heard. 15 out of 18. Sometimes, without bothering to even hear the 9th district. But, no, the 9th circuit does not hear thousands of cases en banc.
There is no "potential". They have the right and duty, under the 10th Amendement of the Constitution, to nullify the illegal ruling of the Federal court. The Court has absolutely no jurisdiction over this matter, and should not even have considered it. What will the Court do to enforce their $5k per day fine anyway? Send Federal Marshalls to collect it? George W. Bush can with the stroke of a pen deny any such cooperation of the Marshalls service. Has this nation just decided to totally ignore what is written in the Constitution and simply hand over the reigns of power to the Judiciary? Utter madness.
You sure about that? I thought that once a circuit court denied a stay, asking the supremes to do so was standard procedure. No?
God bless the Ninth Circuit; the gift that keeps on giving!
IIRC, a District Judge ruled that the Cross must come down, and that the City of San Diego must pay $$$ penalties if they don't comply. The order to comply by early August was appealed to the Ninth Circuit, where a panel (typically 3 Judges) upheld the lower court's ruling. The Ninth Cicuit will hear the appeal en banc (entire Court) in October.
I hope SCOTUS gets this right...
The Taleban destroyed the statue of buddha and the liberals try to destroy crosses.
Godless Ones ping
In common language, what exactly are the points of the Lemon Test? Why are they insufficient? What test would you replace them with?
If any of these three prongs is violated, the government's action is deemed unconstitutional.
I would replace it with the common sense test. Does this action by the government establish a religion in violation of the first amendment?
First prong: Is a religion established?
Second prong: Is a religion established?
Third prong: Is a religion established?
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.