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.
Kennedy is not SCOTUS. He is but one member. And considering the victories we had last summer vis a vis Roberts and Alito, he does not have as powerful an influence as he used to have.
good news
Keep the courts in mind when people say that Bush didn't/doesn't make a difference.
Fine by me but I'll guarantee you that it won't happen.
Doesn't mean much; this just preserves the "status quo" until the next action by the Supremes. SC is out of session for the summer, but even then individual justices take action on things like this routinely. You cannot read this action as either pro or con on the merits of the case. Still, I hope the cross wins!
That's about it.
We want that in writing and what would be the penalty if you are wrong? (smile)
The bottom line, IIR, was that the cross would have to be removed and/or torn down before the Supremes met again for business, a calculated move by the judge who ordered the destruction of the cross. This preserves things until the case can be argued, and indicates that the New Imroved USSC thinks that this should be discussed.
I think that it takes four justices to vote to hear a case. The addition of Alito might have given the Court the 4th vote.
Is Philip Paulson any relation to the new Fed Chairman Paulson?
"ok, this is just a stay until they decide, nothing more. They do this kind of stuff all the time and it means nothing."
Be viligant there Halls....the tides a gonna change as we true patriots keep up the pressure and not only reclaim the Supreme Court but rise up with a renewed enthusiasm to promote conservatism widely. The traitorous left needs to be crushed and lets all do it together...with God we cannot fail my brethren and sistaren too.
I think you're right....I think I remember that.
So, then, it would probably be the loss of O'Connor that's going to get this heard.
That was EXACTLY my reaction! Now we'll just have to see if the Supreme Court deserves any praise.
Until someone else explains the details to us I'll tell you what I think this means.
There is some legislation being pushed to save the cross, but even with lightning speed by (congressional and senate standards) nothing could have been done by Aug 2, that is when the $5,000.00 A DAY fine kicks in, and the principals had said they couldn't hold on with a fine that size, so the cause appeared doomed, a stay gives us time.
I hope this is at least close to what is going on, losing the cross is so troubling to me, I haven't been following the case closely.
I thot only Communist or Islamic regimes tore down the religious symbols of other faiths?
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.