The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > General Posts

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-28-2010, 10:52 AM
darrels joy's Avatar
darrels joy darrels joy is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Indian Springs
Posts: 5,964
Distinctions
Contributor 
Thumbs up High court supports Mojave cross in Calif.

High court supports Mojave cross in Calif.

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer Mark Sherman, Associated Press Writer 50 mins ago


WASHINGTON The Supreme Court said Wednesday that a lower court went too far in ordering the removal of a congressionally endorsed war memorial cross from its longtime home atop a remote outcropping in California.

Signaling support for keeping the cross, the justices ordered the federal court in California to look again at Congress' plan to transfer a patch of federal land beneath it into private hands.

The lower court had barred the land transfer as insufficient to eliminate concern about a religious symbol on public land in this case, the Mojave National Preserve.

The ruling was 5-4, with the court's conservatives in the majority.

The VFW erected the large cross in the federal preserve more than 75 years ago.

It has been covered with plywood for the past several years following the court rulings. Court papers describe the cross as 5 feet to 8 feet tall.
"Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens agreed that soldiers who died in battle deserve a memorial to their service. But the government "cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message," Stevens said.

Six justices wrote separate opinions and none spoke for a majority of the court. The holding itself was narrow, ordering lower courts to look again at the transfer of land from the government to private control.

Lower federal courts previously ruled that the cross' location on public land violated the Constitution and that the land transfer was, in effect, an end run around the constitutional problem.

Kennedy, who usually is in the court's center on church-state issues, suggested there may have been no problem in the first place.

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm," Kennedy said.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have gone further than Kennedy and Chief Justice John Roberts, who joined Kennedy's opinion.

Alito said he would allow the land transfer, barred until now, to take effect. Scalia and Thomas said they would not even have allowed the former National Park Service employee who complained about the cross to bring his objection to the transfer into court.

Roberts took a decidedly commonsensical approach to the matter. At the argument in October, a lawyer argued there probably would be no objection if the government took down the cross, sold the land to the VFW, and gave the VFW the cross to immediately erect again.

"I do not see how it can make a difference for the government to skip that empty ritual and do what Congress told it to do sell the land with the cross on it," Roberts said.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor also dissented.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100428/...ve_cross/print
__________________

sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2  
Old 04-29-2010, 05:59 AM
revwardoc's Avatar
revwardoc revwardoc is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Gardner, MA
Posts: 4,252
Distinctions
Contributor VOM 
Default

Geez! A logical decision by the SC! Who'da thunk it?
__________________
I'd rather be historically accurate than politically correct.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Military high court to hear Abu Ghraib appeals David Iraqi Freedom 0 09-14-2009 11:34 AM
Guantanamo Inmates May Seek Release, High Court Says David Homeland Security 0 06-12-2008 11:16 AM
High Court OKs Personal Property Seizures 82Rigger General Posts 98 07-11-2005 11:16 AM
High Court Ducks Gitmo Case David Terrorism 0 01-18-2005 01:42 PM
High court urged to consider Gitmo detainees? case thedrifter Marines 0 09-03-2003 06:21 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.