Posted on 05/04/2006 12:00:40 PM PDT by calpilot
Judge threatens fine to enforce '91 ruling By Onell R. Soto UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
May 4, 2006
NELVIN CEPEDA / Union-Tribune The cross was dedicated in 1954 as a war memorial. A federal judge moved to end a 17-year legal saga yesterday by ordering the city of San Diego to remove the Mount Soledad cross from city property within 90 days or be fined $5,000 a day.
“It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this Court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad Cross on City property,” U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. said.
(Excerpt) Read more at signonsandiego.com ...
Atheists are making more progress each day. But then again they have done so much to better America, haven't they? I suppose we all owe them our gratitude.
Let me guess... 9th circuit
The City of San Diego owns the property, right? So what possible jurisdiction does a Federal judge have over this? Who gets the "fine" if the cross doesn't come down? Under what law or section of the Constitution does he base his ruling?
This is where San Diego and the state of California need to stand up and give that judge two big guns up and tell him, "You want that cross down, Your Honor, bring your ass and a cutting torch up on Mount Soledad and do it yourself. Until then, bugger off and go read the Ninth and Tenth Amendments a few times."
You listening, Ahnold?
}:-)4
I wonder if the local VFW would be able to buy a 30 square foot or so area from the city? Say, the exact footprint of the memorial? Then it would not be a religious(?) display on public property. No harm, no foul.
I've got a great idea. Why can't the city donate the land to, say, the American Legion, or the VFW? Then the cross won't be on city property!!!!
San Diego soon to be renamed the City of James
You haven't been following Arnold's governorship very closely, have you?
U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr., this time.
Amazing...since when the did the cross become unconstitutional? I read over the article again and it made my blood boil. I had to get up and walk around to keep my blood pressure down. I hope San Diegoans put up a hellava fight to keep the cross there along with the tribute to the fallen soldiers.
They want to put the Muslim symbol up there...
Liberal Judges..have been/are...the cause of the
country's demise...Ruth -Baiter- Ginsberg, put
on Supreme ourt with little to no opposition from
the Republicans???? it is time some one stood up to
the shenanigans going on..How about it..GWB...do
you have the guts to come out forcefully...and
mad as hell..when it is called for? Like ihe
tearing down of the cross? Just do it !! Jake
From the article: "Courts have invalidated three land transfers – two sales to a private group and a gift to the federal government – designed to keep the cross atop one of the city's most scenic landmarks."
They tried 3 times to make it "constitutional" but they were denied. So I ask you, is this about a cross on public land, or is it about the secularists' near demonic obsession with removing religious symbols from our society?
Yup. We certainly can thank them for increased deviancy and socialism. They’ve done so much for Europe, too.
Pres. Bush can declare it a National Landmark. Petition is here:
http://www.thomasmore.org/soledad.html
They are the gift that keeps on giving.
We've been through that. A donation of the land would be an illegal gift of public property. The land would have to be sold, in which case the atheist would be the high bidder. We've sold the land twice with attempts to limit its sale, and both sales have been tossed out by the courts.
San Diegans have been, and will continue to. They don't call the city Des Moines By The Bay for nothing.
Attempts to sell the Memorial in th epast have been blocked
by godless anti-American Judges like Thompson. Legislation to transfer the Memorial to the Feds was signed by Bush--but
I doubt he would ever dare challenge a despot like Thompson.
Makes NO difference that the Cross(and there has been a cross there since 1913- current version erected in 1954) is
NO violation of the clear and unambiguous language of the
first amendment- and such static display cannot be misconstrued asany "establishment of religion." DO recall it
was a relgious American Jew who led the fight to save the cross.
We've been through that...
I'm for either (1) flooding the region, making it into a "wetland" and; or (2) getting a {name-your-favorite-endangered-species} to take up residence in the crook of the cross.
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.