The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals were busy little bees on Tuesday.
THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CROSS
Earlier in the day the 9th ruled that the much-quarreled about cross at Mt. Soledad is in violation of the US Constitution’s establishment clause. But interestingly, the 9th didn’t ask for the cross to be taken down. Clearly they are looking for a third legal path to walk between constitutional concerns and the very real significance that the cross has to a great many people as a veterans’ memorial.
The LA Times has some of the details:
The 43-foot cross atop public land on Mt. Soledad in San Diego is an unconstitutional “government endorsement of religion,” a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday, the latest twist in a two-decade legal struggle.
But the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did not order the cross removed, as the Jewish War Veterans and other litigants, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, had hoped.
Instead, a three-judge panel sent the case back to a federal trial judge for “further proceedings” on the issue of whether the cross can be modified to “pass constitutional muster” as a war memorial, wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown……
THE PROP 8 “STANDING QUESTION GOES TO SCOTUS
Later in the day, they made their most significant move, which had to do with the Prop 8 case. Specifically, the 9th’s three judge panel that heard arguments on the matter early December, has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether those bringing the appeal of the lower court hearing have legal standing to actually file said appeal, since the state of California (Brown and Schwarzenegger) declined to do so.
The judges’ decision to lob this hot potato to the Supremes is an interesting development.
There was much talk after the three judge panel heard the case last month that the 9th circuit might end up not ruling on the substance of the challenge to Prop 8, as it must first deal with the “standing” issue. And if it ruled that those filing the appeal indeed had no standing, while that would be a victory for marriage rights in California, but there would be no potentially precedent-setting trip to SCOTUS for the case, which is what David Bois and Ted Olson were aiming for when they launched the constitutional challenge to Proposition 8 to begin with.
Thus, recognizing the far reaching consequence of the standing issue, the three judges from the 9th wanted to have that ruling come from the nation’s highest court. Thus is the Supremes say there is no standing, then that is that. Prop 8 is null and void. The lawyers pack up and head home. And the wedding planning may commence.
However, if SCOTUS opines that the appeal has standing, then the 9th can freely rule on the substance of the challenge, without having to worry about any pesky technicalities, thus paving the way for the next step along a potentially historic pathway.
The Atlantic and KQED have more.
INDIANA 12-YEAR-OLD GETS 25 YEAR SENTENCE IN ADULT COURT FOR MURDER
An awful and tragic crime, but please read the details. Sentencing this 12-year old kid as an adult simply shows the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the the US sentencing and prison system.
The Fort Wayne, Indiana paper has the story.
Max this kid out in a juvenile facility. Fine. But not this.
AFTER DCFS HALF MILLION $$ IN CELL PHONE WASTE, COUNTY SUPS WANT TO LOOK INTO ALL COUNTY CELL PHONE USE
Good idea. Here’s the original story about the wasted $512 thousand. And the new story about the County Sups….concern (and subsequently ordered countywide audit—both from the LA Times
While I think the courts should be rigorous in maintaining separation of church and state in the context of the contemporary understanding of acceptance of a “secularized” government sphere as providing the best protection for religious (and “non-religious”) freedom for all citizens, I am confounded by groups like the ACLU going after religious symbols that are the product of a less consistently secular history. This is simply part of our public legacy and to try to tear stuff down that has some tradition behind it is just clueless – in fact, it’s miltantly clueless (I don’t know the exact provenance of the cross in question, but I’m assuming it has some history and wasn’t constructed in this millenium.) The correct approach to dealing with any issues of sectarian offense is to put a historical plaque up at the site, explaining the history of the structure in question and perhaps including some additional symbolism acknowldging other major faiths (although this opens up the door to adding an 800 number to buy a copy of “Dianetics” to any multi-faith public affirmations.) One of the reasons I don’t send money to the ACLU is because of stuff like this – there are lots of important issues for civil libertarians to address. This is not one of them. Keep religious symbols off of any new public construction or planned building redesign or renovation. Tear down anything that’s beyond repair or not earth-quake proof. But don’t spend public funds on trying to revise the public landscape of the past. This is reminiscent of this well-intentioned but idiotic professor who has published a version of Mark Twain’s indispensable novel about “African-American Jim” and his pal, Barry Finn, or something like that.
Slaves and Indians, as it were. Ludicrous.
The ACLU does wonderful stuff with jails and criminal justice. But this sort of thing makes me nuts as well.
Here’s the Huck Finn story. I may still post it tonight.
http://blog.al.com/aharvey/2011/01/aum_professor_edits_slurs_from.html
Madness.
And all the crosses at Arlington National Cemetary? How soon till the ACLU brings suit about those? Just another example of ideology trumping common sense.
It’s a pure and simple waste of money.
On the same note…how do people (and politicians) who continually trumpet about the separation of church and state resign themselves to the fact that they pray in the House and Senate?
Why doesn’t it cause a stir when Nancy Pelosi, the most progressive speaker ever, told Boehner “God bless you” when she handed him the gavel?
The answer is easy. It’s political pandering and posturing to the secularists. Even the pols who continually give credence to their lawsuits and arguments don’t abide by their “separation of church and state” ideology.
ATQ – Senators and Congressfolk can say or do anything they damned please – even hire a chaplain, as the military does for those in service who want to access counseling and worship. You’re making a silly extremist argument, just like the ACLU periodically does. Seperation of church and state isn’t an “ideology”, it’s a constitutional guarantee that is inherent in the 1st Amendment. “Conservatives” (which I generally put in quotes because “conservative” is a bogus concept in the context of the contemporary radicalized, infinitely hyocritical and/or infernally ignorant rightwing GOP wingnuttery on steady display) are just as nutty on this as some ultra-liberals.
I should add that referencing the “crosses at Arlington cemetary” displays a fundamental misunderstanding, as noted above, of the significance of the 1st as the “separation clause.” Again, this is a personal choice of the deceased’s family – which is entirely different than including religious symbolism in the architecture of publicly-funded buildings that are designed to serve the general public, such as courtrooms. Commons sense is apparently beyond the extremes of all stripes.