• News Ticker alerts

The Supreme Court announced today that justices are staying out of the legal dispute over the Mt. Soledad Cross in La Jolla, refusing to hear an appeal of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court ruling which deemed the cross a public endorsement of religion.

But, Judge Samuel Alito did give those in support of keeping the cross some hope.

"Because no final judgment has been rendered and it remains unclear precisely what action the Federal Government will be required to take," read Alito's statement, leaving it open to return to the Supreme Court after the district court makes their ruling final.

Using an earlier court case, Judge Alito, determined that the case was "not yet ripe for review by this court."

Kelly Shackleford, co-counsel for the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, says Alito's statement leaves the door open to continue their fight to keep the cross atop Mt. Soledad.

"We are hopeful in light of Justice Alito's statement and remain committed to defending this memorial through the many legal battles yet to come."

  • News Ticker alerts

Comments

Purocuyu June 25, 2012 @ 2:58 p.m.

I am looking forward to the two sides, one smug, and the other feeling justice wasn't served, and I almost don't care which side wins. But if it ends up getting taken down, I feel sorry for the blameless backhoe operator who's face will be famous as he knocks it down.

0

SurfPuppy619 June 25, 2012 @ 6:15 p.m.

So the 24 year old case is going to live another life..........................

0

Javajoe25 June 25, 2012 @ 8:12 p.m.

Not yet "ripe for review"? This case is so ripe it is really starting to stink. It seems the Supreme Court will not render a decision until they absolutely, positively have to. I don't understand how the case got before the Supremes before a final decision was issued by the Circuit Court in the first place. You mean to tell me you can take a case to the Supreme Court without first exhausting all lower court hearings?

0

monaghan June 25, 2012 @ 10:04 p.m.

Please, javajoe25, explain what happened here. I was all celebrating this to mean that the Cross is not going to be re-heard, that it's existence on Soledad is therefore unconstitutional as the lower Ninth District Court found, and that it is therefore caput. What's the source of Alito's comment? What's left here, except for the locals to ignore the ruling?

0

SurfPuppy619 June 25, 2012 @ 10:27 p.m.

"We are hopeful in light of Justice Alito's statement and remain committed to defending this memorial through the many legal battles yet to come." LOL...........................this comment is so funny given how long this legal battle has been waged.

They don't have to remove the cross, the solution is simple and they know it-you erect other religious symbols with the cross, viola, no establishment of a specific religion, case closed and game over.

0

dwbat June 26, 2012 @ 8:28 a.m.

Actually you mean voilà. A viola is a stringed instrument like a violin. ;-)

0

SurfPuppy619 June 26, 2012 @ 10:24 a.m.

Thanks dw, I mean "voila", (I do not know how to put that little thingy above the "a".......)

0

Joaquin_de_la_Mesa June 26, 2012 @ 10:27 a.m.

Cello! This cross does not violin the Constitution anymore than the crosses at Fort Rosecrans do.

0

SurfPuppy619 June 26, 2012 @ 1:10 p.m.

Actually Fort Rosecrans has a number of different religious symbols, including the Star of David, so that comparison is not valid.

0

monaghan June 26, 2012 @ 10:58 a.m.

Bassoon humbug, Joaquin. The Christian cross now on Mt. Soledad is a thumb in the eye of secular society and was so intended from its McCarthy era origins.

FYI, there are no Christian crosses at Ft. Rosecrans -- only headstones and plaques. Families may choose what religious symbol, if any, they wish to have appear on the grave markers of their war dead.

0

Joaquin_de_la_Mesa June 26, 2012 @ 11:43 a.m.

Your reasoning is bassless, Maestro Monaghan. The constitution did not establish a secular society. In fact, the phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution. It says -- paraphrasing -- Congress shall make no law establishing a national religion. How does letting stand a war memorial -- yes, it's a cross, as memorials to fallen soldiers tend to be -- amount to congress passing a law?

Ironically, it's atheists and secularists -- if that's a word -- who want to make laws establishing their own beliefs as the law of the land.

0

SurfPuppy619 June 26, 2012 @ 1:18 p.m.

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause enjoins gov from promoting one religion over another-which is obviously what this case is about. Is it a war memorial or is it establishing one religion over others????? That IS the crux of the case.

I still think the easiest, fastest and simplest way to cure the problem and end decades of legal wars is to put up a few more religious symbols with the cross-that should NOT be objected to if it is a WAR MEMORIAL because all types of soldiers with various beliefs religious died in WWII.

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close