Skip to comments.Fight over cross heads to Supreme Court
Posted on 03/04/2014 11:12:13 PM PST by South40
LA JOLLA Veterans vying to save the Mount Soledad cross have taken the battle to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Mount Soledad Memorial Association filed a petition to the nations highest court Tuesday asking for a review of the long-running case. The move bypasses an appeals process that has already begun in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Due to the unique circumstances and the gravity of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial case, we wanted to give the Supreme Court an opportunity to take the case now if they choose since they will be deciding it eventually, said Kelly Shackelford, president and CEO of Liberty Institute, the religious advocacy group representing the association. We are hopeful that, once and for all, the Court will settle this question of the constitutionality of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial, as the fate of hundreds of other similar veterans memorials hang in the balance.
The 9th Circuit ruled in 2011 that the 29-foot La Jolla cross represented an apparent government endorsement of Christianity and sent the case back to the local federal court. U.S. District Judge Larry Burns in December said the 9th Circuits ruling left little room for interpretation, and he reluctantly ordered the cross must come down, although he delayed the order while awaiting further appeals.
Both the memorial association and the U.S. government have since filed appeals with the 9th Circuit, asking it to reconsider. If the circuit court declines to overturn its ruling, the next step would be the Supreme Court.
Jim McElroy, an attorney representing one of the parties opposing the cross, said the petition to the Supreme Court at this stage doesnt make sense, since the removal order has been stayed and there is no emergency.
Theres no risk to the status quo. Its going to get to the Supreme Court if the Supreme Court wants it to, he said.
Cross supporters have petitioned the Supreme Court on the case before. The justices declined to review it at the time, but left the door open for another try.
The cross was erected in 1954 as a Korean War memorial and it tops a 14-foot base that includes some 3,400 plaques of military veterans. The case centers on only the cross, not the memorial.
The Jewish War Veterans of the United States and other local residents filed the suit in 2006, objecting to the display of the cross on federal property. Several negotiations to either transfer the property to private ownership or to remove the cross to nearby land have not been successful.
There should be a right to acknowledge God. I hope at some point the nut cases against Christian citizens get a national backlash.
There’s a lot more social conservative issues going to the SCOTUS in the Obama admin than any other. He’s got the hook in at SCOTUS.
Atheists are idiots.
“Atheists are idiots.”
Agreed, but this lawsuit was brought by Jewish War Veterans.
If they paint the cross in rainbow colors, they’re sure to win.
I think the Supremes should stop wearing robes - too priest like - and put on rainbow KKK robes. Then, they would look as irrelevant to Truth as they really are.
The Supreme Court - a demonstration of the idiocy of oligarchy.
An atheist Philip Paulson brought and maintained the lawsuit until he passed away. The lawsuit was not brought by a Jewish group. Years later, as the back and forth of the lawsuit continued, the Jewish War Veterans national board also put in their two cents in a move spurred by historical gut fear of Christian symbols associated with Christian anti-Semitism. The JWV Board did not represent the sentiments of most Jewish veterans across the country.
Today’s Mount Soledad veterans’ monument has many Jewish veterans of WWI, WWII, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, etc. commemorated, each with the details of his or her service and honored with their engraved photos in uniform and stars of David on the plaques of those who are Jewish, if that is what the purchasers of the plaques desire, just as there are optional crosses engraved on the plaques commemorating Christian veterans.
There is NO violation of the first Amendment/ Establishment clause. The terms used do not support removal of the structure. The debates in Congress-June-Sept.25 1789 do NOT support current myth constructed by the Courts. The very day Congress adopted the Bill of Rights they acted to request a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving and Roger Sherman of Conn. who on Aug.17,1789 recognized the Constitution granted NO power over religion to the Federal Govt. The same Roger Sherman who seconded James Madison on Thursday June 28,1787 at the Convention of 87 requesting Franklins’ call for prayer be enacted.Roger Sherman on Sept.25 ,1789 in Congress cited several “precedents in Holy Writ:” to justify the practice of Thanksgiving. If this Cross were to violate the First amendment then it must have violated it since it was erected. Problem is there is NO support for such seen in the Commentaries on the Constitution by Justice Joseph Story 1833—1859 No support for this modern myth in the Reports of Committees US Senate Judiciary Committee Report Mr. Badger,19 Jan. 1853— or corresponding US House Report by Mr.Meacham 27 March,1854.For any to say that was a long time ago this is now is NOT sustainable for the claim is that the Cross— and similar structures somehow violate the First amendment which was adopted by Congress Sept.25,1789 and by the United States by Dec.1791. and Commentaries —even judicial decisions published closer to the adoption of the Bill of Rights DO NOT support modern myth—the REAL HARM DONE the US Constitution and OUR Bill of Rights has been done by the “progressives’ by the revisionists— by the enemy of our Constitution and way of life.
“The JWV Board did not represent the sentiments of most Jewish veterans across the country.”
But isn’t that usually what happens? A whole group of people are hijacked by their “leadership.” I just marvel at the pettiness of people in these instances. This is just another example of the perversion of the Constitution’s constraints on the establishment of a state religion. These memorials do nothing of the kind, but the judges always “see” a non-existent connection.
“The JWV Board did not represent the sentiments of most Jewish veterans across the country.
But isnt that usually what happens? A whole group of people are hijacked by their leadership. I just marvel at the pettiness of people in these instances. This is just another example of the perversion of the Constitutions constraints on the establishment of a state religion. These memorials do nothing of the kind, but the judges always see a non-existent connection.”
Very well put. That’s exactly how it is.