Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

SUPREME COURT ISSUES STAY IN SAN DIEGO CROSS CASE - High court intervenes in fight over cross
AP ^ | 7/3/06 | TONI LOCY

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]

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Culture/Society; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: aclu; aclucross; annoyedatheist; anthonykennedy; antitheist; atheistcrusader; atheistpaulson; christophobia; churchandstate; cross; enviousathiest; moralabsolutes; mtsoledad; sandiego; scotus; warmemorial
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-210 next last

1 posted on 07/03/2006 11:36:53 AM PDT by Pukin Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Good!


2 posted on 07/03/2006 11:37:57 AM PDT by bobbyd (Damn, I've been tagged.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Allright!! Here's hoping some common sense breaks out!


3 posted on 07/03/2006 11:38:14 AM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I've just about lost all faith in the SCOTUS.

If they get one right it's most likely an accident.

L

4 posted on 07/03/2006 11:38:18 AM PDT by Lurker (When decadence pervades the corridors of power, depravity walks the side streets.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Praise God!


5 posted on 07/03/2006 11:38:19 AM PDT by vrwc1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
I might have gotten a bit excited?

It is actually San Diego vs. Dirty Atheists.

Sorry.
6 posted on 07/03/2006 11:38:47 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Dont be a Conservopussy! Defend Ann Coulter, you weenies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Alright. That's what I'm talkin' about


7 posted on 07/03/2006 11:38:58 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

High court intervenes in fight over cross
TONI LOCY
Associated Press
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 refused to consider to consider the long-running dispute between Paulson and the city.


8 posted on 07/03/2006 11:39:13 AM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog; SoCalPol

Wonderful news!


9 posted on 07/03/2006 11:39:24 AM PDT by b9 ("the [evil Marxist liberal socialist Democrat Party] alternative is unthinkable" ~ Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onyx; doodlelady

see this?


10 posted on 07/03/2006 11:39:32 AM PDT by Hildy (Change calls the tune we dance to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Excellent news. Way to be on top of it, Dog. If it ain't posted on Free Republic, it ain't news...


11 posted on 07/03/2006 11:40:13 AM PDT by abb (Because News Reporting is too Important to be Entrusted to Journalists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Definitely good news for this Fourth of July.


12 posted on 07/03/2006 11:40:25 AM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa

Please provide a source and working link for the article.

Thanks.


13 posted on 07/03/2006 11:40:29 AM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Good news is good news..AND you got the "Dirty Atheists" part right. ;-)


14 posted on 07/03/2006 11:40:45 AM PDT by verity (The MSM is comprised of useless eaters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

For those that have not seen this war memorial, it is one of the most beautiful spots in the entire world. I applaud Kennedy, of all people


15 posted on 07/03/2006 11:40:54 AM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
Glorious News !!!!!
16 posted on 07/03/2006 11:41:00 AM PDT by afnamvet (It is what it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa; Admin Moderator
Hey mods, would you please replace my outburst with post #8's information? Thanks, PD.
17 posted on 07/03/2006 11:41:13 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Dont be a Conservopussy! Defend Ann Coulter, you weenies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
Three years ago the Supreme Court refused to consider to consider the long-running dispute between Paulson and the city.

Three years ago, the Court was different.
18 posted on 07/03/2006 11:41:16 AM PDT by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

ok, this is just a stay until they decide, nothing more. They do this kind of stuff all the time and it means nothing.


19 posted on 07/03/2006 11:41:16 AM PDT by Halls (One Proud Texas Momma!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Halls
It is still awesome news down here in SD. The Supremes have never been kind to dirty atheists either, so there is hope.
20 posted on 07/03/2006 11:42:25 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Dont be a Conservopussy! Defend Ann Coulter, you weenies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; jude24; RobFromGa
Three years ago the Supreme Court refused to consider to consider the long-running dispute between Paulson and the city.

Does this mean that the judges count noses on the possible outcome before the elect to hear one of these cases?

If so, then Kennedy is saying that the addition of either Alito or Roberts (or both) NOW makes this worth hearing.

21 posted on 07/03/2006 11:42:45 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It. Supporting our Troops Means Praying for them to Win!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Next Supreme Court Judge: Janice Rogers Brown!!!


22 posted on 07/03/2006 11:43:12 AM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

here ya go
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/news/politics/14959563.htm


23 posted on 07/03/2006 11:43:40 AM PDT by abb (Because News Reporting is too Important to be Entrusted to Journalists)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog; xzins; blue-duncan; jude24

Ok, now is the time to jettison the Lemon Test! O'Connor is gone and has been replaced by a man who has some common sense. This will be fun to watch.


24 posted on 07/03/2006 11:43:59 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee
Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting
25 posted on 07/03/2006 11:44:19 AM PDT by mware (Americans in armchairs doing the job of the media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

It all depends on how Kennedy rules. If he follows the Constitution, we win. If he worries about what his cocktail party friends will say, we lose.


26 posted on 07/03/2006 11:44:25 AM PDT by puroresu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
At least it didn't uphold the lower courts ruling....yet.
27 posted on 07/03/2006 11:44:31 AM PDT by b4its2late (John Kerry changes positions more often than a Nevada prostitute!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobFromGa
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight. Hmmm! Trying to cover up his humongous blunder...err decision...re the Guantanamo detainees. I noticed he only issued a stay which means further down the line he'll lift the stay and the ACLU will win again. Time for the senile old coot to retire.
28 posted on 07/03/2006 11:44:42 AM PDT by Newfy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
President Bush's Supreme Court appointments have a lot to do with the stay. Don't give up the fight against the godless liberals who seek to banish an American monument from the landscape.

(The Palestinian terrorist regime is the crisis and Israel's fist is the answer.)

29 posted on 07/03/2006 11:45:21 AM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Newfy

"I noticed he only issued a stay which means further down the line he'll lift the stay and the ACLU will win again."

I'm not sure he can do that until the SCOTUS hears the case.


30 posted on 07/03/2006 11:46:02 AM PDT by Bigh4u2 (Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
All we want is the right to exchange the land with the Government. We should win this in the Supreme Court.
31 posted on 07/03/2006 11:46:09 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Dont be a Conservopussy! Defend Ann Coulter, you weenies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Does this mean the Court hasn't adjurned for the summer yet?

If so, we can still have retirement hopes.


32 posted on 07/03/2006 11:46:32 AM PDT by NeoCaveman (The Latest on the Ohio gov race http://blackwellvstrickland.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mware

Keep praying we may turn Tony back around yet. :)


33 posted on 07/03/2006 11:46:40 AM PDT by defconw (Yes I am a Bushbot, so what of it?- Official Snowflake)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Thank God!


34 posted on 07/03/2006 11:46:53 AM PDT by RDTF ("We love death. The US loves life. That is the big difference between us two.” Osama Bin laden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/14959563.htm


35 posted on 07/03/2006 11:47:01 AM PDT by RobFromGa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Hallelujiah!


36 posted on 07/03/2006 11:47:07 AM PDT by SmithL (The fact that they can't find Hoffa is proof that he never existed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
If so, then Kennedy is saying that the addition of either Alito or Roberts (or both) NOW makes this worth hearing.

You may well have a good point Chaplin. Hopefully, that is the case.

37 posted on 07/03/2006 11:47:20 AM PDT by jazusamo (DIANA IREY for Congress, PA 12th District: Retire murtha.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Kennedy trying to redeem himself? LOL


38 posted on 07/03/2006 11:48:28 AM PDT by OldFriend (I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.....and My Heart to the Soldier Who Protects It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk

"Next Supreme Court Judge: Janice Rogers Brown!!!"

Your lips to God's ears!


39 posted on 07/03/2006 11:49:26 AM PDT by HonestConservative (Its Snowing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: xzins

LOLOL....maybe Kennedy doesn't want another public scolding from Thomas and Scalito!


40 posted on 07/03/2006 11:49:45 AM PDT by OldFriend (I Pledge Allegiance to the Flag.....and My Heart to the Soldier Who Protects It.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend
I dont doubt it. Who cares? We are going to win!
41 posted on 07/03/2006 11:50:10 AM PDT by Pukin Dog (Dont be a Conservopussy! Defend Ann Coulter, you weenies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog; All
American Legion in CA says “Enough,” Brings ADF Aboard To Defend Mt. Soledad Cross Against ACLU
42 posted on 07/03/2006 11:50:24 AM PDT by The Spirit Of Allegiance (Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: puroresu

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.


43 posted on 07/03/2006 11:50:57 AM PDT by 60Gunner (It takes a liberal to ruin a village...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

good news


44 posted on 07/03/2006 11:51:08 AM PDT by firewalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

Keep the courts in mind when people say that Bush didn't/doesn't make a difference.


45 posted on 07/03/2006 11:51:13 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fish hawk
Next Supreme Court Judge: Janice Rogers Brown!!!

Fine by me but I'll guarantee you that it won't happen.

46 posted on 07/03/2006 11:52:06 AM PDT by Digger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog

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!


47 posted on 07/03/2006 11:52:51 AM PDT by Viet Vet in Augusta GA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

That's about it.


48 posted on 07/03/2006 11:53:50 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (Al Qaeda / Taliban operatives: Read the NY Times, for daily up to the minute security threat tips.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pukin Dog
"A [Leftist California] judge [with an angenda more important than established case law] declared it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion."
49 posted on 07/03/2006 11:54:37 AM PDT by 50sDad (ST3d: Real Star Trek 3d Chess: http://my.ohio.voyager.net/~abartmes/tactical.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Digger

We want that in writing and what would be the penalty if you are wrong? (smile)


50 posted on 07/03/2006 11:55:38 AM PDT by fish hawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-210 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson