I've been watching this develop for a few days, and though I know perfectly well what's going on, the wackos have managed to work the system to give themselves the greatest possible advantage.
In San Diego, the Mt. Soledad "War Memorial" is under attack. That's because mean people don't want us to honor veterans or those who fell beside them.
Or so the wackos would have you believe. To understand why the "War Memorial" is under attack, you need only see this picture of it:
The "memorial" is on public land and violates the Establishment Clause. A lawsuit was filed in 1989, but repeated shifting and questionable legislation has kept the issue in the courts to the present day.
What else happened in 1989? Shortly after the lawsuit, the "memorial" suddenly became a "memorial." Until that time, it was the Mount Soledad Easter Cross and contained absolutely no mention of veterans or fallen soldiers. There are also many other indicators that there was little or no secular purpose to the display before the frantic attempt to evade the Constitution. There is a very good overview on wikipedia, including a very detailed timeline of events.
The city has done everything under the sun to prevent the removal or destruction of the cross, despite findings from every court with jurisdiction up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit also struck down the attempted sale of just that small portion of the city park upon which the cross sits as a clearly sectarian act. The cross was ordered to be removed, but the city appealed, and Justice Anthony Kennedy issued a stay, allowing further finagling by city officials.
Despite the indisputable findings of the courts, the city approved the sale of the land to the federal government via eminent domain. Congress pushed the bill through quickly with Bush's approval, and the bill became law earlier this week. This apparently renders all previous court findings moot, as none of the courts went beyond applying California constitutional law to declare that the display is illegal. The unofficial plan is for the land to be declared a national monument in an effort to protect it.
I am unsure as to whether the case will go to the Ninth Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court. Undoubtedly, the Ninth Circuit would rule for the plaintiff and order the removal of the cross. However, even if this were to happen, one could reasonably expect that the case will be appealed (yet again), this time to the Supreme Court, which is now laden with right-wingers and religious sympathizers. The last pair of similar cases, the decisions for which were released simultaneously, split 5-4 but in opposite directions. (In McCreary County v. ACLU, the court ruled that a display of the Ten Commandments was unconstitutional, but in Van Orden v. Perry, the court ruled that a display of the Ten Commandments was consitutional.) I suspect another 5-4 decision supporting the display using Van Orden as precedence.
