Posted on 04/07/2016 1:57:32 PM PDT by kingu
In a long-awaited ruling, a federal judge has sided with plaintiffs who argued it was unconstitutional for Los Angeles County supervisors to place a Christian cross on the county seal.
A divided Board of Supervisors voted in 2014 to reinstate the cross on top of a depiction of the San Gabriel Mission, which appears on the seal among other symbols of county history. They were sued by the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California and a group of religious leaders and scholars, who said placement of the cross on the seal unconstitutionally favored Christianity over other religions.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Well then we will have to change the name of the County as well.
Can’t be giving credence to angels, you know.
The judge is a Bill Clinton appointee.
If the judge had been an Obama appointee, the ruling would have required replacement of the cross with a pink triangle.
Judges like this are a part of the reason the Snowflake Generation thinks history started the day they were born and that MLK and Cesar Chavez are Founding Fathers.
.
Why aren’t Indians offended by the casino change lady in the middle of the Seal?? (Sorry to possibly offend, but that was a Bill Handel joke when they created the ‘new’ Seal in 2007)
Just tell the idiot, leftist judge that the cross is a telephone pole and that it celebrates technology!
Tell the court to GO POUND SAND!
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
The Mission and the cross is not merely a religious symbol, but part of the basic historical record of how the El Camino Real opened up California and tracked the length of the state from San Diego to San Francisco. They were strategically placed to be a haven one day apart in what was a difficult and dangerous trip. In recent years, the leftist savages have renamed buildings and streets and signs of religion, but this goes so far as to try to change the very nature of history itself.
by this Logic no picture or written document of anything that has or is a symbol of any religious significance, can ever be used on anything by the government
how is it we can have a Martin Luther King Day?
Martin Luther is a famous starter of Protestant religion?
Martin Luther King was a minister?
How can we have a holiday for somebody that has any religious symbolism in their name
what about Abraham Lincoln.... the name Abraham that also has religious significance
what if I have to wear a cross around my neck when you take my photo ID
the seal depicted a famous historical building ...and that historical building happen to have a Christian cross on it
you have to censor the building?.. better to simply not put the building on the seal
but at some point we’re going to have to start removing the dates because even though they don’t say AD and BC for the year.... the year still did start the count from the beginning of Christ that’s still too close to religious significance
but then we’re going to have to change names of the days of the week that have names related to Old Norse
and start changing the names of months that have relations to old Roman gods
or even changing the names of planets that have the names of Roman gods
hell we can’t even refer to the Apollo space program named after an old Greek god
Perhaps they should refrain from calling LA...the city of angels as well.
Ugh!
Maybe they should change Los Angeles’ name back the original name”
El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles de Porciúncula
Replace the cross with the word “CENSORED”.
Yeah. How long before Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Switzerland and the UK drop the cross from their flags?
Its really named after the Virgin Mary....the queen of Angels
Oh my gosh! Even more. lol
To be replaced by a musslime icon with no arguments.
In truth, the people of Los Angeles County don’t deserve to have that cross on their county seal and they insult it with the politicians they elect and the lifestyles they endorse.
Then nothing belongs on the seal. Typically cultural and historical icons are placed on seals. Even if they don’t respect the religious value of the cross, its cultural value should still qualify for inclusion.
Or nothing.
I say burn it to the ground.
The judge is wrong.
The City of Angels shouldn’t have a cross in it’s seal? How about devil horns instead, as Lucifer was once the most beautiful angel of light until he became so self-absorbed that he became evilly destructive.
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.