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.
Good heavens, Dog, no wonder you're Pukin.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy looking for a make up call after blundering the Military Tribunal issue?
ping...
Send them to SoCalPol or CAluvdubya or SnarlinCubBear or someone else down there where they have so many dirty so-in-so's who want destroy all Christian symbols honoring war dead.
I had the pleasure of advising the attorneys on this case in the exact process of seeking emergency relief in the Supreme Court. I have background in that process since I have sought such relief on several occasions, sometimes succeeding, sometimes not.
I was not surprised by this action. It does not resolve the case. It does establish the point that nothing irreversible will be done to the Soledad Cross, pending the appeal. Both the trial court and the Ninth Circus (excuse me, Circuit) Court of Appeals had denied this very normal form of relief pending appeal.
And finally, hoohah! (I expect that there may be an announcement from the White House shortly, which will kill this case in the federal courts. Stay tuned.)
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
My first grant of emergency relief, putting Gene McCarthy on the Texas ballot as an independent for President in 1976, shows the exception. The Justice granting the relief recited that he had "consulted with his colleagues" and that "four of them agreed with his conclusion." Such consultation did not occur in this case.
John / Billybob
I always wondered what happened to Tone Loc.
Thanks, CBB.
My dad says Taylor has not yet dropped out. Will he?
The Constitution of These United States guarantees the freedom of religious expression in the 1st Amendment. Religious expression is listed prior to freedom of speech or the press or assembly.
"[i]Amendment I - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/i]"
The other mention of religion in The Constitution of These United States is in Article 6:
Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
[i]The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;[b] but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.[/b][/i]
All it says is that there will be no "official" state religion, like the Church of England or the Catholic Church that dominated europe at the time. And no person will have to belong to any specific church to own land, hold office, vote or be a citizen.
Any other reading is expressly contra-Constitutional and if those of us that have sworn to uphold that Constitution, "against all enemies, foreign or domestic" would honor those oaths, then those attempting to force a state religion of atheism would be placed under the dirt where they've so long belonged.
oops. I didnt read but the first page of replies. Sorry bout that.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight.
Pods in his cellar?
This is wonderful. We may have a chance yet to save the cross
What's interesting is that in recent years there have not been very many orders that have forced petitioner to specifically ask the full Court for relief after a denial by a justice, although the Court used to do that. Almost every denial of relief in recent times has come with the statement, "The request for _____ presented to Justice _____ and by him referred to the Court is denied." UNLESS the request involves an issue just considered by the full Court [When there are multiple requests involving the same execution, for example, and the full Court already decided to deny the stay. (I can think of one exception to this new rule, involving Justice Stevens.)] When the Justice refers the matter to the whole Court, he or she usually includes a recommendation as to what the Court should do with the request. My hunch is that Kennedy realized that many of the members of the Court have already left for vacation and thus it would only be proper for him to put things on hold until he and the Court had more time to think about it.
And I would be shocked if the "Circuit Justice" didn't at least consider how his brethren might feel about the case. Maybe it's not an exact nose-count, but I doubt we have anyone near as brazen and insane as Justice Douglas on the Court now.
Outstanding individuals at The Thomas More Law Center. Thanks for the link.
Thanks Thomas More Law Center.
"Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool."
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.