The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments this morning in the case of Salazar v Buono (Docket No. 08-472) (http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-472.htm), which relates to a cross that was erected on federally owned land in the Mojave National Preserve. In bullet point form, avoiding too much detail, here is my basic understanding of the history of the case.

- In 1934 the VFW erected an about 8' cross on 'Sunrise Rock' in a fairly remote area of the Mojave National Preserve. The cross, which was on federally owned land, was meant to be a memorial to fallen military members and was visible from a road that passed nearby (though I'm guessing it isn't prominent).

- In 1999, a request was made for permission to put up a Buddhist Shrine in the same area as the cross. The National Park Service denied that request and indicated that it intended to remove the cross.

- In 2000, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the use of federal funds to remove the cross. It also designated the cross a national memorial for World War I veterans.

- Frank Buono, a Roman Catholic who used to work on the Preserve, filed suit challenging the presence of the cross. It is important to note that, the basis of his asserted offense is not the presence of the cross in an of itself - but rather its presence in light of the fact that other religious symbols were not allowed.

- A federal district court ruled in Buono's favor, barring the cross. Notably, it found that Buono did have standing to bring the challenge, even though he was not offended by the cross, per se.

- The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially affirmed the lower court ruling.

- At some point along the way, Congress passed legislation to give the land that the cross was on to the VFW in exchange for some land elsewhere in the Preserve. The VFW was required to maintain the memorial, or the land would revert back to federal ownership.

- The federal district court barred the transfer, finding that it was only being done to avoid the court's earlier ruling. It found that the display still amounted to a government endorsement of a particular religion.

- The Circuit Court again affirmed the district court's ruling.

- The Interior Department appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.


The Interior Department's petition for cert (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/08-472_pet.pdf) poses two legal questions:


1. Whether respondent has standing to maintain this action where he has no objection to the public display of a cross, but instead is offended that the public land on which the cross is located is not also an open forum on which other persons might display other symbols.

2. Whether, even assuming respondent has standing, the court of appeals erred in refusing to give effect to the Act of Congress providing for the transfer of the land to private hands.



I haven't linked any articles about the case, as I don't want to present one that frames the issue from one particular ideological perspective or the other. If anyone is interested in more information or commentary, I'm sure they can find it using google.

The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments this morning in the case of Salazar v Buono (Docket No. 08-472) (http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-472.htm), which relates to a cross that was erected on federally owned land in the Mojave National Preserve. In bullet point form, avoiding too much detail, here is my basic understanding of the history of the case.

- In 1934 the VFW erected an about 8' cross on 'Sunrise Rock' in a fairly remote area of the Mojave National Preserve. The cross, which was on federally owned land, was meant to be a memorial to fallen military members and was visible from a road that passed nearby (though I'm guessing it isn't prominent).

- In 1999, a request was made for permission to put up a Buddhist Shrine in the same area as the cross. The National Park Service denied that request and indicated that it intended to remove the cross.

- In 2000, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the use of federal funds to remove the cross. It also designated the cross a national memorial for World War I veterans.

- Frank Buono, a Roman Catholic who used to work on the Preserve, filed suit challenging the presence of the cross. It is important to note that, the basis of his asserted offense is not the presence of the cross in an of itself - but rather its presence in light of the fact that other religious symbols were not allowed.

- A federal district court ruled in Buono's favor, barring the cross. Notably, it found that Buono did have standing to bring the challenge, even though he was not offended by the cross, per se.

- The case was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which essentially affirmed the lower court ruling.

- At some point along the way, Congress passed legislation to give the land that the cross was on to the VFW in exchange for some land elsewhere in the Preserve. The VFW was required to maintain the memorial, or the land would revert back to federal ownership.

- The federal district court barred the transfer, finding that it was only being done to avoid the court's earlier ruling. It found that the display still amounted to a government endorsement of a particular religion.

- The Circuit Court again affirmed the district court's ruling.

- The Interior Department appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.


The Interior Department's petition for cert (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/08-472_pet.pdf) poses two legal questions:




I haven't linked any articles about the case, as I don't want to present one that frames the issue from one particular ideological perspective or the other. If anyone is interested in more information or commentary, I'm sure they can find it using google.

Thanks for clarifying this case. I have been watching the news but I guess not close enough to hear all the details you just provided. It makes more sense to me now.

Court Appears Divided Over Cross on Federal Land - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125492094232870683.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories)

This is a fairly straight forward article with a few comments about what happened in oral arguments this morning.


Thanks for clarifying this case. I have been watching the news but I guess not close enough to hear all the details you just provided. It makes more sense to me now.

You're welcome

I read the transcript of the oral argument, and it certainly seems like they are going to decide this case on fairly narrow grounds - though I kinda get the impression that Justice Scalia would like to make a ruling with broader importance. The merits of the original issue aren't properly before the Court in this case (i.e. whether or not the cross being displayed on government property is constitutional). Furthermore, I think the position of many of the Justices (i.e. that even the issue of standing to challenge the presence of the cross isn't properly before the Court) is technically correct, and will win the day. Essentially, all that leaves is a question of interpretation with regard to whether or not the government's attempts to transfer the land to private ownership constitute a violation of the district court's order, as it was written.

It enjoins the government from 'permitting' the cross to be displayed. Is the government 'permitting' the cross to be displayed by transferring the piece of land to the VFW? That's an interesting question, and there's plenty of nuanced argument either way, which I won't go into. Regardless, it isn't a question the answer to which is likely to have far reaching importance. Not that it matters, but given all of the details specific to this situation, I believe that the government's intended actions would be 'permitting' the cross to be displayed.

How will the Court end up ruling? It's still hard to tell. For one thing, if I recall correctly, Justice Kennedy asked no questions at all during oral arguments, nor did Justice Thomas. Chief Justice Roberts asked quite a few questions, but I don't recall anything that stuck out as him tipping his hand - though Justice Scalia most certainly tipped his. The important point is, whatever the ruling, it doesn't look like it will have major impact outside of this case. As much as I like to see rulings that have fundamental importance - after having read the oral arguments, I don't think one is justified in this case. Pity.

I will also add, that I continue to be impressed with the amount of intellectual horsepower on the Court. As much as I may disagree ideologically with some of the Justices on certain issues, and with others on other issues, most of them exhibit keen minds and deep understandings of the issues - a great deal of nuanced discernment. I've criticized Justice Stevens many times, but he does not lack for an able mind - nor does Justice Breyer. I'm not as impressed with Justices Ginsburg and Alito (though maybe I just haven't read them at their best), and obviously the jury is still out on Justice Sotomayor, but I have a great deal of respect for the intellectual horsepower possessed by the rest of the Justices. One more note - sometimes Justice Scalia can be so on point, and display tremendous loyalty to his considerable intellectual prowess - but other times, his intellectual honesty succumbs completely to his ideological convictions. I suspect that dichotomy could be noted, to some extent, of everyone that has ever sat on the Court. But, to me, it is particularly evident with Justice Scalia.

Court Appears Divided Over Cross on Federal Land - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125492094232870683.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories)

This is a fairly straight forward article with a few comments about what happened in oral arguments this morning.




You're welcome

Where does it end? What about Arlington Cemetary? That would be federal land. Why not the monuments at the capitol or the USSC?

Where does it end? What about Arlington Cemetary? That would be federal land. Why not the monuments at the capitol or the USSC?

The case is not about displaying the cross on federal grounds. The case is about NOT allowing recognition of other Religous symbols (see the Buono points of Tilted's post).

Arlington Cemetary and the US Supreme Court do not favor one religous symbol over others. Both allow and display a multitude of different faiths symbols.

That is not the case in regards to the topic of this thread, and the reason for the hearing.

Where does it end? What about Arlington Cemetary? That would be federal land. Why not the monuments at the capitol or the USSC?

As Nucklesack pointed out, those situations are legally distinguishable from this situation - or at least, I believe more people than not accept the different arguments that they are. As far as this particular review by the Supreme Court goes though, the only Justice that even appeared interested in the question of whether or not it was constitutional to display the cross (on federal land) was Justice Scalia.

The case is not about displaying the cross on federal grounds. The case is about NOT allowing recognition of other Religous symbols (see the Buono points of Tilted's post).

Arlington Cemetary and the US Supreme Court do not favor one religous symbol over others. Both allow and display a multitude of different faiths symbols.

That is not the case in regards to the topic of this thread, and the reason for the hearing.

Correct - at least with regard to the original hearings of the case. As it is considered now by the Supreme Court, it doesn't even appear that it is about that (though with regard to what they'll find in their opinion, anything is possible).


Here are a few opinions and/or legal commentaries that I've found on this case. I must say that the WSJ opinion piece is rather disheartening. It is sad that people who feel they have enough understanding of a situation to offer strong opinions about it (especially to the extent that they seek to affect the opinions of others), don't feel constrained by a responsibility to accurately present the realities of the situation. Put more bluntly, it is sad that ideological advocates feel it is okay to lie in order to make their case. If you feel that you can't make a convincing argument on the basis of the reality of a situation, and thus need to resort to red herrings and spurious assertions, then perhaps you should just keep your mouth shut. Mistakes are one thing, but if someone had spent even a few minutes sincerely investigating this case, then they would know that some of the assertions made in that piece are patently false. So, Mr. Cruz and Ms. Shackelford are either wholly ignorant about this case, or they are deliberately trying to mislead their readers. Either way, it is shameful.

Ted Cruz and Kelly Shackelford: War Memorials and the Constitution - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455440071429518.html)

The Supreme Court Faces the Question of Who Can Sue to Challenge a Religious Display (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20091009.html)

A cross we should not bear - Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13529471)

Desert cross becomes court's burden - Columnists - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/418/story/1275639.html)

Correct - at least with regard to the original hearings of the case. As it is considered now by the Supreme Court, it doesn't even appear that it is about that (though with regard to what they'll find in their opinion, anything is possible).


Here are a few opinions and/or legal commentaries that I've found on this case. I must say that the WSJ opinion piece is rather disheartening. It is sad that people who feel they have enough understanding of a situation to offer strong opinions about it (especially to the extent that they seek to affect the opinions of others), don't feel constrained by a responsibility to accurately present the realities of the situation. Put more bluntly, it is sad that ideological advocates feel it is okay to lie in order to make their case. If you feel that you can't make a convincing argument on the basis of the reality of a situation, and thus need to resort to red herrings and spurious assertions, then perhaps you should just keep your mouth shut. Mistakes are one thing, but if someone had spent even a few minutes sincerely investigating this case, then they would know that some of the assertions made in that piece are patently false. So, Mr. Cruz and Ms. Shackelford are either wholly ignorant about this case, or they are deliberately trying to mislead their readers. Either way, it is shameful.

Ted Cruz and Kelly Shackelford: War Memorials and the Constitution - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703298004574455440071429518.html)

The Supreme Court Faces the Question of Who Can Sue to Challenge a Religious Display (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20091009.html)

A cross we should not bear - Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/ci_13529471)

Desert cross becomes court's burden - Columnists - MiamiHerald.com (http://www.miamiherald.com/418/story/1275639.html)

I'm aware of the case, and sadly the ideologues dont just occur at some of the sources you posted above.

I knew there would be a subset of the Relgious Right on this Forum that would approach the case from the viewpoint of an attack on the Cross. By doing so, as with your above articles, they do themselves and the case a disservice.

The irony is they display the same traits and attributes of the Leftist wing of the Democratic party, who's tactics they claim to despise.

Of course your labeled a liberal for pointing it out :killingme

- In 1934 the VFW erected an about 8' cross on 'Sunrise Rock' in a fairly remote area of the Mojave National Preserve. The cross, which was on federally owned land, was meant to be a memorial to fallen military members and was visible from a road that passed nearby (though I'm guessing it isn't prominent).

- In 1999, a request was made for permission to put up a Buddhist Shrine in the same area as the cross. The National Park Service denied that request and indicated that it intended to remove the cross.

- In 2000, Congress passed legislation prohibiting the use of federal funds to remove the cross. It also designated the cross a national memorial for World War I veterans.



65 yrs later after the fact, the Buddhists can find a different location for their temple .....

to start piling up other religious symbols in the same location would marginalize the cross dedicated to the WW I Vets


and I am fairly certain Buddhists do not put up war memorials, being they are pacifists ....


but hey I guess the world has changed we can now marginalize Christian Symbols and old white guys


move the cross off of public land .....

65 yrs later after the fact, the Buddhists can find a different location for their temple .....

to start piling up other religious symbols in the same location would marginalize the cross dedicated to the WW I Vets


and I am fairly certain Buddhists do not put up war memorials, being they are pacifists ....


but hey I guess the world has changed we can now marginalize Christian Symbols and old white guys


move the cross off of public land .....

You might want to research a little first

Link (http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/war.htm)

During World War II, approximately half of the troops in Japanese-American units such as the 100th Battalion and the 442nd Infantry were Buddhists.

More information (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/100-442in.htm) on them and the history of the 442nd

I'm aware of the case, and sadly the ideologues dont just occur at some of the sources you posted above.

I knew there would be a subset of the Relgious Right on this Forum that would approach the case from the viewpoint of an attack on the Cross. By doing so, as with your above articles, they do themselves and the case a disservice.

The irony is they display the same traits and attributes of the Leftist wing of the Democratic party, who's tactics they claim to despise.

Of course your labeled a liberal for pointing it out :killingme

I understand what you mean. People on both sides of the ideological divides are willing to forego intellectual honesty in furtherance of positions they feel passionate about.

In this instance, I was only referring to the authors of the WSJ opinion piece. I think it is completely reasonable to express an ideological opinion, but quite another to plainly lie about what the position of the opposition is (in order to make it more easily assailable). With regard to the issues before the Court in this particular case, I can appreciate the position of both sides - I think there were legitimate legal arguments to be made either way.

A little more about Justice Scalia - I'm generally a big fan of his judicial reasoning, and of him in general. But, his questioning in the oral arguments of this case disappointed me some. He essentially made the argument that the Latin Cross has become a secular symbol - at least in the context of honoring the dead. I don't agree with that notion, and I certainly don't think that it is unreasonable for non-Christians to not see it as such, if they are so inclined - particularly with regard to their honored dead.

I'm aware of the case, and sadly the ideologues dont just occur at some of the sources you posted above.

I knew there would be a subset of the Relgious Right on this Forum that would approach the case from the viewpoint of an attack on the Cross. By doing so, as with your above articles, they do themselves and the case a disservice.

The irony is they display the same traits and attributes of the Leftist wing of the Democratic party, who's tactics they claim to despise.

Of course your labeled a liberal for pointing it out :killingme

I wont label your a lib for that. There are many other reasons..

What is going on in a facet of this case and the dozens that have gone on before it ,is a continual cleansing of NOT religious reference but specifically christian symbols. This takes place not only in public schools, public squares etc. Diversity welcomes Islam and Wicca for example in publik skools but when a kid wants to bring his bible in for show and tell Barry Lynn comes rushing in waving his ACLU card....NO?

I understand what you mean. People on both sides of the ideological divides are willing to forego intellectual honesty in furtherance of positions they feel passionate about.


Let's not be naive EVERYONE has some ideological spin. We all have a world view that we think is the way things should be. Let's not pretend we don't.

Let's not be naive EVERYONE has some ideological spin. We all have a world view that we think is the way things should be. Let's not pretend we don't.

Who is pretending that we don't? Of course we do. However, there is a difference between having passionate beliefs about particular ideological positions, and being willing to abandon intellectual honesty in attempts to present those positions in better lights (or the opposition's in worse lights) for reasoned argument's sake.

The authors of the WSJ piece, to which I referred, simply lied. If you believe in something, then by all means argue for it - but do so sincerely, lest people of conscience give your arguments no credence.