10c opinion from the 7th Circuit

[Sharif]

Link (http://southernappeal.blogspot.com/2005_01_02_southernappeal_archive.html#110477949184614701)


We need not . . . decide whether the display of the Ten Commandments in a neighborhood park violated the Establishment Clause. We will assume, however, the district court was correct [in holding that such a display does violate the EC] in order to reach the issue that is before this court: whether the sale by the City to the Eagles of the plot of land underneath and surrounding the Monument was an independent violation of the Establishment Clause . . . .



The Court answered that question in the negative (with Judge Bauer dissenting).

[Toto]

Opinion (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=04-1321.PDF)

The dissent describes the sale as a fraud.

[Sharif]

Opinion (http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?submit1=showop&caseno=04-1321.PDF)

The dissent describes the sale as a fraud.

Well it is a fraud, the problem is is that this decision will stand and create an easy work around for the theocrats provided they (7th Circuit) don't review this decision en banc or SCOTUS looks at it (doesn't seem likely because of 10c cases already before the court).

I swear there was a similar case before that someone indeed posted about, where this kind of sale was nixed. Perhaps it was this case at the district court level

[nixon]

Note: I read the entire court desision before writing the following.

I don't really have a problem with this particular situation. The majority opinion made sure to clarify several times that the case of Marshfield did not cause a carte blanc approval of all sales of this nature. In fact I think the Marshfield case is closer to a "fraud" sale than this case by far based just on the information presented in this court document.

The city did make the sale, and as long as the Eagles have the right to remove the monument at any time of their choosing (Yes I know they won't do it, the point is can they) then the city has no further entangling. In a way this case is a classic victory for CSS. The city has to devest, the monument is still there, but covered by disclaimers of private all around it. The monument was supported by the city (via ownership of property) for 40 years, but now cannot. So people walking by can see the history of that, but also see that CSS did prevail in the end. In my opinion, this case, IF the pro CSS people now leave it alone, will hurt the pro religion activists in government much more than it could hurt CSS. The court (Unlike so many other recent cases) made a really extensive quality arguement for the current status quo and it is now a documented public record. They have rigorusly defined standards by which this kind of situation can occur. They also noted situations that would have an obvious effect of fraud such as carving out public land in government centers and stated that those could not stand. This case can now be used to defeat folks like Roy Moore. The Plaintiffs don't want this case going any further. It can only hurt them now. I personally don't want the SCOTUS involved here. They will only weaken the tight standards imposed in this case to the detriment of CSS.


I'd like to see a lot more discussion about this case, because I think it represents one of our best victories in recent times. In the Roy Moore case, we won, but at a cost. In this case, we won, but the religionists paid the cost because they may not realize they lost. Pro CSS folk are fighting an uphill battle, and it seems as if every victory can be spun by the other side to demonize us. Here finally is our chance to show it the other way around. We finally have a good line in the sand...and THEY drew it. Lets not throw this away!

[Captn Kidd]

So let me get this straight...if judge Roy Moore had sold the 36 square feet under which "Roy's Rock" was placed to a private group at what they determined to be fair market value, and a plaque was installed noting that this was private property, that would be OK?

I don't see this as a victory for CSS.

[nixon]

What part of "They also noted situations that would have an obvious effect of fraud such as carving out public land in government centers and stated that those could not stand. This case can now be used to defeat folks like Roy Moore." do you not understand?

[Gavinicus]

from the opinion:

In April 1965, after the approval of the Monument but before its installation, La Crosse suffered severe flooding from the Mississippi River.

It seems to me that God tried his damndest to keep the monument from being installed in the first place. Maybe YHWH is a strict separationist?

Also, I note that nowhere in the opinion (majority or dissent) is there any description of what the monument actually said, for instance, "I am the Lord your God, you shall have no other Gods before me." Every time this discussion comes up, the fundies turn the discussion into whether the government should take a stand against murder, theft and parental dishonor, as if non-Mosaic tradition somehow endorses such behavior. None of the commentators (media, courts, heavily-medicated right-wing nut-job radio jocks) ever talk about the first four commandments which, even the most reality-challenged must admit are just a teensy bit on the establishing religion side.

[Toto]

City registers legal victory (http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2005/01/05/news/00lead.txt)

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation is very surprised that the 7th U.S. Court of Appeals ruled on its Ten Commandments challenge at this time," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, FFRF co-president. "We expected the appeals court to delay its decision pending rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court, which is hearing two appeals regarding Ten Commandments monuments on public land."

The foundation will consider requesting a rehearing by the entire 7th U.S. Court of Appeals, she said. The decision was written by the dissenter in a 7th Circuit case ruling against government display of the Ten Commandments in Illinois. He has not represented the majority views of the Seventh Circuit on this, she said.

The plaintiffs also may seek a U.S. Supreme Court review, said James A. Friedman of La Follette Godfrey & Kahn of Madison, their attorney. They could do both, but the petition for a review by the entire appeals court must be considered first as the plaintiffs have 14 days to do that. They have 90 days to ask for a U.S. Supreme Court review, he said.

The 7th Circuit Court has 15 judges. In deciding whether to hear a case, the court considers whether the decision conflicts with another, which this does not, or if it contains questions of exceptional importance, Friedman said. He said the plaintiffs would seek a rehearing based on the latter.

The plaintiffs could consider asking to join the cases already before the high court, Friedman said. But he said those briefs are mostly filed and La Crosse's case is different from them in that it involves the sale of property.

[nixon]

I see that the plaintiffs are looking to keep this going. I think that's a big mistake. Not because I support the 10cc's in public places or am afraid of the religionists, but because I think that the current outcome is the best possible outcome in the case (From above opinion).