Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Elena Kagan, Supreme Nominee, Tried To Take Down The Mojave Cross in Salazar v. Buono
Scotus Wiki ^ | 5-10-10 | joinedafterattack

Posted on 05/10/2010 4:08:08 PM PDT by joinedafterattack

[half way down the page under, Oral Argument Recap] Despite strenuous efforts by Justice Antonin Scalia to keep alive the core question of whether the cross display was a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, the dominant sentiment on the bench seemed to be that that was no longer open to review. And despite efforts by U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to get the Court to focus on whether a former park service officer had any right to sue to test the display, that, too, seemed to be beyond the Court’s reach. Kagan, in fact, had to endure lectures by several of the Justices that the government should have tested that question earlier in the case and so had now missed its chance.

The Solicitor General, and a California civil liberties lawyer on the other side, Peter J. Eliasberg, found themselves compelled to pore over the details of Congress’s response to the lower court rulings, rather than arguing broad constitutional principles. The effect was to significantly shrink even the remaining issue in the case.

Kagan insisted that those details showed that Congress only wanted to keep a “war memorial” on the site, which only incidentally was a religious symbol, so there was no basis for blocking the land transfer; it cured any constitutional problem. Eliasberg countered that those details showed that Congress had singled out a single religious faith for favoritism, gave that cross a monumental status that few other iconic structures get, did not actually forfeit its interest in keeping the Mojave cross standing on Sunrise Rock, and thus remained in a continuing constitutional violation.

(Excerpt) Read more at scotuswiki.com ...


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: cross; elenakagan; kagan; lawsuit; mojave; mojavecross
[half way down the page under, Oral Argument Recap] Despite strenuous efforts by Justice Antonin Scalia to keep alive the core question of whether the cross display was a violation of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, the dominant sentiment on the bench seemed to be that that was no longer open to review. And despite efforts by U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan to get the Court to focus on whether a former park service officer had any right to sue to test the display, that, too, seemed to be beyond the Court’s reach. Kagan, in fact, had to endure lectures by several of the Justices that the government should have tested that question earlier in the case and so had now missed its chance.

The Solicitor General, and a California civil liberties lawyer on the other side, Peter J. Eliasberg, found themselves compelled to pore over the details of Congress’s response to the lower court rulings, rather than arguing broad constitutional principles. The effect was to significantly shrink even the remaining issue in the case.

Kagan insisted that those details showed that Congress only wanted to keep a “war memorial” on the site, which only incidentally was a religious symbol, so there was no basis for blocking the land transfer; it cured any constitutional problem. Eliasberg countered that those details showed that Congress had singled out a single religious faith for favoritism, gave that cross a monumental status that few other iconic structures get, did not actually forfeit its interest in keeping the Mojave cross standing on Sunrise Rock, and thus remained in a continuing constitutional violation.

1 posted on 05/10/2010 4:08:08 PM PDT by joinedafterattack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: joinedafterattack

Incompetent and an embarrassment

Bork this b****


2 posted on 05/10/2010 4:18:33 PM PDT by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joinedafterattack

First They Came for the Jews

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemöller

Community and individuality are not opposites. People cannot survive on their own. When the odds are stacked against you, you must rally with the oppressed and hated.

When a growing oppressive regime is taking hold, you must act, otherwise you will soon face your enemy alone and hopeless.

Strength of community is a strength as much as individualism, as long you are willing to face weaknesses in your own community. Ignoring slacking values will mean that you will be rallied against by those you oppress.

Niemöller affirms we must rally against unhealthy organized regimes. We must also stay vigilant with those that appear to be good natured, as all organisation attracts corruption. Niemöller also warns us that if it is you who are corrupt, then you will face a stronger combined force of foe!
Vexen Crabtree

3 posted on 05/10/2010 4:28:11 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson