Watchwoman on the Wall


Mr. Soledad Cross

Mt. Soledad Cross Case Will Have to Wait for Supreme Court Hearing

by Karla Dial – June 25, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court today turned down an appeal to hear a lawsuit over a veterans’ memorial cross near San Diego.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in January ruled the cross, as it stands, violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, but sent the case back to a district court to find a suitable remedy. Opponents complained in 1989 that the memorial’s shape means the government is “endorsing” Christianity, since it sat on city property at the time.

In an unusual turn, Justice Samuel Alito issued a statement explaining his reasoning for voting against hearing the appeal at this time — but also pointing out that so far, there is no clarity on cases concerning memorial crosses maintained by government entities.

“Because no final judgment has been rendered and it remains unclear precisely what action the Federal Government will be required to take, I agree with the Court’s decision to deny the petitions,” Alito wrote. “Our denial, of course, does not amount to a ruling on the merits, and the Federal Government is free to raise the same issue in a later petition following entry of a final judgment.”

That could take years, said Jeff Mateer, general counsel for the Liberty Institute, which represents the group charged with maintaining the memorial.

“The district court has to say, ‘Yes, this cross has to come down,’ or ‘No, it doesn’t have to come down,’ and then that has to be appealed up to the 9th Circuit, and eventually work its way back to the Supreme Court,” he explained. “Since this battle’s been going on almost 25 years, it’s probably going to approach that (to make it back to the Supreme Court).”

Several cases involving memorial crosses for war veterans and state highway patrol officers have been argued over the last decade, but the Supreme Court has not heard most of them. In 2010, however, the Court ruled that tearing down a different California war memorial cross would be “interpreted by some as an arresting symbol of a Government that is not neutral but hostile on matters of religion and is bent on eliminating from all public places and symbols any trace of our country’s religious heritage.” In that case, the Court ruled that transferring the land on which the memorial stood from government to private hands satisfied the problem.

“As long as the law remains unclear, the ACLU and other separationist groups are going to continue to attack displays of religion in public,” Mateer said. They won’t stop “until the Supreme Court takes one of these cases and addresses it head-on, and says once and for all that there’s nothing wrong with public displays of religion in American society. When you attack religious symbols like crosses, and you demand that they be torn down, really you’re not being neutral. You’re being hostile to religion.”

Read Justice Alito’s statement on turning away the case.

Read the 9th Circuit’s ruling on the cross.


Related content:

  1. Court: Mojave Cross Can Stay
  2. Federal Court Orders New York City to Back Off Policy
  3. Free-Speech Case Appealed to Supreme Court
  4. House Passes Two War Memorial Bills
  5. California Marriage Amendment Appealed to Full 9th Circuit





Posted by Donna Calvin — Monday, June 25, 2012


Please share this Watchwoman post on your Facebook page, Linkedin, Google+1, Twitter to all your friends.
Please click “Like”, Share, and Leave Comments. 

Visit Word Warriorette, a free Yahoo Group, and subscribe to be notified (one email a day)
of new posts on Watchwoman.

DISCLAIMER: Beliefnet puts paid advertisements on “Watchwoman on the Wall” blog site including some that would never be approved of by the King James Bible, Pastor Ernie Sanders of Doers of the Word Church, What’s Right-What’s Left Radio Ministry, the Voice of the Christian Resistance, Geauga County Right to Life and Donna Calvin.  We at do not condone, endorse, adhere to, practice or believe in many of the topics and some of what other bloggers promote or their religions at Beliefnet.  However, Mrs. Calvin has no control of what Beliefnet displays.   She blogs at Beliefnet because she is in the missionary field ministering to true believers posting articles and commentaries informing pro-life, conservative Christians of recent anti-Christian acts and hostile legislation to God’s Agenda and His Will for the world.  Hopefully, unbelievers will read these along with the salvation message of Jesus Christ as written in the Gospel of John, Chapter 3, according to the King James Bible, and be saved.  A missionary must go into the unbelievers’ territory to reach them.  Her mission is to Proclaim Warning to a Nation that has forgotten their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, the only Truth, the Life, and the only Way to the One God the Father.

Read more: //



Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus