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.
Well, you ask for a stay because there's no reason not to: who knows, you might just win. But it's a big victory to actually get one. It *IS* a superior court stepping in and overruling a lower court. I don't know how exactly how many times it happens in a session, but any interference in a lower court by a higher court is very rare. You slightly exaggerated, for instance, how many 9th-circuit cases are heard, but let's say that a give circuit hears a few hundred -- and I'm pulling that out of a hat. How many get overturned? Typically, zero to maybe as high as six. That the Supreme Court overturned FIFTEEN from one district is absurd. Likewise, overruling a lower court's inaction on staying is also quite rare.
So let's say that I'm a local school board, and I want to buy American History books for the local Baptist high school.
1. Secular purpose: I'd like these kids to get a gov't version of history
2. Advance or Inhibit religion: how could it? it's the textbook our local schools use.
3. Entanglement: nope. it's a purchase, not a marriage.
But we both know they'd never allow the school board to buy textbooks for the local Baptist Church.
They don't even look at their own tests with common sense.
Your new standard should be revised.
1. Does it establish a religion?
2. Use some freakin' common sense.
This is awesome news, congratulations!
Thanks for the link.
If this goes to the whole court then we will really get a good idea of what the new justice's are made of.
Wow! That is so beautiful.
All: Bump to Post 138
I used to live in Carlsbad, and Clairemont before that, and I used to pass by the cross almost daily. It never failed to catch my eye...and it was a welcome sight!
Amen
Does anyone have a picture of the cross at Mt. Soledad National War Memorial? I can't seem to find one and would like to know what it looks like.
Awsome news!! This and other awesome news today, very uplifting.
Howdy, Tam! ~
T'would be a loss
for Soledad to lose its cross.
Nice to see you, by the way ~
Have a happy holiday!
Nothing like a sense of hope
to broaden the horizon's scope!
"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."
-- --
OK, question.
IF these daily fines were imposed, which of the many government agencies would get the money? Who in the goverment are the beneficiaries of this windfall profit (tax)? How would it have been spent? On education programs touting the evils of white crosses, or on the evils of patriotic war memorials?
Two guesses who appointed the TWO CA judges who gave the opposing (liberal/socialist/unconstitutional) personal decision rulings.
Seeing you again
Makes this thread even better.
I only do Haiku...
:-)
":^)
Whatever structure you embrace ~
rhyming or Haiku ~
it always brightens up the place
seeing you here, too ...
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.
