SUPREME COURT ISSUES STAY IN SAN DIEGO CROSS CASE - High court intervenes in fight over cross

AP ^ | 7/3/06 | TONI LOCY

[Pukin Dog]

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.

[xzins]

Three years ago the Supreme Court refused to consider to consider the long-running dispute between Paulson and the city.

Does this mean that the judges count noses on the possible outcome before the elect to hear one of these cases?

If so, then Kennedy is saying that the addition of either Alito or Roberts (or both) NOW makes this worth hearing.

[fish hawk]

Next Supreme Court Judge: Janice Rogers Brown!!!

[abb]

here ya go
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/politics/14959563.htm

[P-Marlowe]

Ok, now is the time to jettison the Lemon Test! O'Connor is gone and has been replaced by a man who has some common sense. This will be fun to watch.

[mware]

[puroresu]

It all depends on how Kennedy rules. If he follows the Constitution, we win. If he worries about what his cocktail party friends will say, we lose.

[b4its2late]

At least it didn't uphold the lower courts ruling....yet.

[Newfy]

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight. Hmmm! Trying to cover up his humongous blunder...err decision...re the Guantanamo detainees. I noticed he only issued a stay which means further down the line he'll lift the stay and the ACLU will win again. Time for the senile old coot to retire.

[goldstategop]

President Bush's Supreme Court appointments have a lot to do with the stay. Don't give up the fight against the godless liberals who seek to banish an American monument from the landscape.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

[Bigh4u2]

"I noticed he only issued a stay which means further down the line he'll lift the stay and the ACLU will win again."

I'm not sure he can do that until the SCOTUS hears the case.

[Pukin Dog]

All we want is the right to exchange the land with the Government. We should win this in the Supreme Court.

[NeoCaveman]

Does this mean the Court hasn't adjurned for the summer yet?

If so, we can still have retirement hopes.

[defconw]

Keep praying we may turn Tony back around yet. :)

[RDTF]

Thank God!

[RobFromGa]

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/14959563.htm

[SmithL]

Hallelujiah!

[jazusamo]

If so, then Kennedy is saying that the addition of either Alito or Roberts (or both) NOW makes this worth hearing.

You may well have a good point Chaplin. Hopefully, that is the case.

[OldFriend]

Kennedy trying to redeem himself? LOL

[HonestConservative]

"Next Supreme Court Judge: Janice Rogers Brown!!!"

Your lips to God's ears!

[OldFriend]

LOLOL....maybe Kennedy doesn't want another public scolding from Thomas and Scalito!