Little-Acorn
07-30-2008, 05:18 PM
Things were just getting under way in this case, both parties had presented their briefs. The lawyer for the atheist opposing the monument, filed for summary judgement, meaning he said he felt his opening briefs were so persuasive he asked the judge to rule in his favor, based only on them (a standard legal move). The lawyer for the people who wanted the monument to stay, did the same. Everybody pretty much expected the judge to deny both petitions, and move to the long, drawn-out trial phase.
But the judge granted summary judgement in favor of the people who wanted the monument to stay, and the case was over. The atheists might appeal to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.
The atheist died unexpectedly a few years ago, as the lawsuits were working their way through the courts.
Looks like his friends didn't take the hint.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080730-9999-1m30cross.html
Latest decision: Cross can stay
Landmark more memorial than religious symbol
by Onell R. Soto and Matthew T. Hall
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS
July 30, 2008
A judge says the cross atop Mount Soledad “communicates” primarily nonreligious messages of military service and sacrifice.
The giant cross atop Mount Soledad can stay, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
The La Jolla landmark has been the subject of nearly 20 years of litigation, public votes and legislative maneuvers as critics complain it's unconstitutional to have a religious symbol on public land.
But yesterday, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said the cross – visible for miles – has become a memorial to veterans, and its secular message outweighs any religious meaning.
“The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death, and sacrifice,” Burns wrote.
As a result, the congressional takeover of the cross by eminent domain – an action that followed another federal judge's order that the cross could not stand on city-owned land – is constitutional, Burns ruled.
Background: For decades, civil libertarians have battled with defenders of the 43-foot-tall cross atop Mount Soledad, leading to ballot propositions, lawsuits and a takeover by the federal government – all over the issue of whether the display on public land is constitutional.
What's changing: A federal judge ruled yesterday that the cross is more a secular memorial to war veterans than a statement promoting religion. He said the cross can stay on federal land.
Online: Read the judge's 36-page ruling at http://uniontrib.com/more/documents.
Charles LiMandri, a lawyer fighting the cross's removal, said he was delighted though not surprised with the ruling.
“The people of San Diego wanted and deserve this result,” LiMandri said. “They're not going to be able to take that cross down, and they should just deal with it.”
The ruling troubled the lawyers who challenged the transfer of the cross and surrounding veterans memorial to the federal government.
“The central fact of the case is it's a 43-foot-tall cross,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “There's nothing more religious than a cross.”
Philip Paulson, the late atheist and Vietnam War veteran, sued over the cross in 1989, and two years later, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson said its presence on city land violated a ban on government preference for religions in the California Constitution.
In 2006, after giving the city years to fight or otherwise deal with his ruling, Thompson gave the city an ultimatum: take down the cross or pay daily fines.
That year, Congress passed a law taking the cross and the land on which it sits by eminent domain and giving it to the U.S. Department of Defense.
Paulson died in 2006. Two lawsuits were filed after the federal takeover, one by a friend of Paulson's, another by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America and three people.
Unlike Thompson, Burns based yesterday's ruling on his reading of the U.S. Constitution, which has a more lenient standard on how religious symbols might appear on federal property than the state constitution.
Two Supreme Court decisions on which he relied were decided by 5-4 votes in 2005. In one, the court said the Ten Commandments couldn't be displayed in Kentucky courthouses because they were “unmistakably religious,” but their display among other monuments on the Texas Capitol grounds was constitutional.
But the judge granted summary judgement in favor of the people who wanted the monument to stay, and the case was over. The atheists might appeal to the 9th Circus Court of Appeals.
The atheist died unexpectedly a few years ago, as the lawsuits were working their way through the courts.
Looks like his friends didn't take the hint.
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20080730-9999-1m30cross.html
Latest decision: Cross can stay
Landmark more memorial than religious symbol
by Onell R. Soto and Matthew T. Hall
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS
July 30, 2008
A judge says the cross atop Mount Soledad “communicates” primarily nonreligious messages of military service and sacrifice.
The giant cross atop Mount Soledad can stay, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
The La Jolla landmark has been the subject of nearly 20 years of litigation, public votes and legislative maneuvers as critics complain it's unconstitutional to have a religious symbol on public land.
But yesterday, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said the cross – visible for miles – has become a memorial to veterans, and its secular message outweighs any religious meaning.
“The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death, and sacrifice,” Burns wrote.
As a result, the congressional takeover of the cross by eminent domain – an action that followed another federal judge's order that the cross could not stand on city-owned land – is constitutional, Burns ruled.
Background: For decades, civil libertarians have battled with defenders of the 43-foot-tall cross atop Mount Soledad, leading to ballot propositions, lawsuits and a takeover by the federal government – all over the issue of whether the display on public land is constitutional.
What's changing: A federal judge ruled yesterday that the cross is more a secular memorial to war veterans than a statement promoting religion. He said the cross can stay on federal land.
Online: Read the judge's 36-page ruling at http://uniontrib.com/more/documents.
Charles LiMandri, a lawyer fighting the cross's removal, said he was delighted though not surprised with the ruling.
“The people of San Diego wanted and deserve this result,” LiMandri said. “They're not going to be able to take that cross down, and they should just deal with it.”
The ruling troubled the lawyers who challenged the transfer of the cross and surrounding veterans memorial to the federal government.
“The central fact of the case is it's a 43-foot-tall cross,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “There's nothing more religious than a cross.”
Philip Paulson, the late atheist and Vietnam War veteran, sued over the cross in 1989, and two years later, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson said its presence on city land violated a ban on government preference for religions in the California Constitution.
In 2006, after giving the city years to fight or otherwise deal with his ruling, Thompson gave the city an ultimatum: take down the cross or pay daily fines.
That year, Congress passed a law taking the cross and the land on which it sits by eminent domain and giving it to the U.S. Department of Defense.
Paulson died in 2006. Two lawsuits were filed after the federal takeover, one by a friend of Paulson's, another by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America and three people.
Unlike Thompson, Burns based yesterday's ruling on his reading of the U.S. Constitution, which has a more lenient standard on how religious symbols might appear on federal property than the state constitution.
Two Supreme Court decisions on which he relied were decided by 5-4 votes in 2005. In one, the court said the Ten Commandments couldn't be displayed in Kentucky courthouses because they were “unmistakably religious,” but their display among other monuments on the Texas Capitol grounds was constitutional.