Posted on 01/26/2016 2:33:34 PM PST by Rebeleye
A federal judge in New Orleans on Tuesday denied a request for an injunction to stop the city from removing four monuments related to the Confederacy.
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier ruled that the New Orleans City Council's 6-1 vote in December to take down monuments to Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, P.G.T Beauregard and a white militia group that led a rebellion against the state's integrated, Reconstruction-era government did not break the law or violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at theneworleansadvocate.com ...
U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier ruled that the New Orleans City Council's 6-1 vote in December to take down monuments to Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, P.G.T Beauregard and a white militia group that led a rebellion against the state's integrated, Reconstruction-era government did not break the law or violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
Barbier added that his decision is not a comment on “the wisdom, or lack thereof, of the actions taken by ... Mayor (Mitch Landrieu) or the City Council.â€
The lawsuit Barbier ruled on was brought by the Monumental Task Force Committee, Louisiana Landmarks Society, Foundation for Historical Louisiana and Beauregard Camp No. 130.
City officials had said they would not take action to remove the statues until the court had a chance to review the plaintiffs’ claims. A city spokesman did not immediately respond to a question about how quickly officials intended to proceed with taking the monuments down following Barbier’s ruling.
'Death threats,' 'threatening calls' prompt firm tasked with removing Confederate monuments to quit
The plaintiffs’ attorney, Franklin Jones, also did not immediately respond to a question about whether his clients intended to appeal Barbier’s decision.
Tuesday’s decision wasn’t entirely unexpected.
At a hearing earlier this month, Jones argued that the risk of damaging the statues while taking them down was too great, and an expert had said moving such complex monuments was rife with unknowns. But Barbier didn’t appear to be swayed by that argument, remarking that the expert cited by Jones worked in offshore rigging and had never relocated a statue.
Barbier also remembered how officials used a helicopter to remove and replace the Statue of Freedom atop the U.S. Capitol when that monument needed repairs.
Further, Barbier cast doubt on whether the preservationists behind the suit could prove they had a chance of winning at a full trial, which the plaintiffs needed to do to secure the injunction they wanted. The judge repeatedly asked the plaintiffs’ attorneys questions about their claims and never seemed satisfied with their answers, at one point saying, “I don’t even understand your argument.â€
That hearing was the same day New Orleans officials announced that the Baton Rouge company hired to remove the statues had received death threats and quit the project.
Five days later, a $200,000 Lamborghini belonging to the owner of that company was found burned to the ground in the firm’s parking lot.
We are subjects of the state.
How is this different than ISIS blowing up historic items?
It isn’t.
the leftists know that when they buy judges, they stay bought....
Sic Semper Tyrannis
just move it to private property and watch that federal eat the constitution then.
They use explosives, Progressives use judges. The end result is the same, so it is just a matter of nuance.
Right
Further, the South was actually our brothers.
It was a terrible war. Lincoln tried to mend things as best he could in the short time he had before he was killed.
The idea was to treat the South with a modicum of respect, so things could mend.
Now, over 150 years later, some bright (not really) people want to punish the South more.
This people make me think we should bring back whipping.
This is asinine.
For me, it’s okay for the South to revere their heroes.
Revisionist history sucks. At Camp Ben McCulloch we’ll make our own flags if we have to. This is year 120 for the reunion.
They actually just appoint them.
Heard 4 supremes coming up soon
Leftists use bombs, too.
What happened to the historical monument preservation that they continually invoke when it suits their purpose?
The six city councilmen would rather spend their time on this, rather than do anything that would tangibly make anyones' life better in that dump of a city.
I understood there were four monuments in question and that three stand on private property. Is this the fourth being spoken of or is it pertaining to all?
Those only apply to Chairman Mao statues.
I understand three ARE on private property. So what gives the city te right to destroy them?
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.