Ignoring the merits of the case or defense, the fact is that our courts have an appeals process, and the city should be allowed to continue its appeal unhampered by the lower courts.

Since the Judge who ordered the cross removed refused to issue a stay pending appeal, that forced several State and Federal Court appeals which finally ended up at the SCOTUS.

And a stay has been issued by the SCOTUS.  

Now the city can pursue its appeal without a $5000 a day penalty looming over their head. 

Again, the merits aside, the city deserve the chance to utilize their legal resources to appeal this decision, even as the petitioner can appeal.  And there is no harm or danger in the interim, so issuing a stay was reasonable.  The lower court’s refusal to allow that reeks of bias. 

Disagree?  Show me the compelling necessity to remove a cross that has stood unchallanged for decades.  Show me the harm. Show me where the public benefit overrides due process in this case.  Show me how anyone suffers an injury if it stands for a while longer as the court matters are resolved.  There is none, this was just judicial bullying.

High court intervenes in fight over cross

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court intervened Monday to save a large cross on city property in southern California.

A lower court judge had ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight.

Lawyers for San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial said in an appeal that they wanted to avoid the "destruction of this national treasure." And attorneys for the city said the cross was part of a broader memorial that was important to the community.

The 29-foot cross, on San Diego property, sits atop Mount Soledad. A judge declared it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The cross, which has been in place for decades, was contested by Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran and atheist.

I have gotten a lot of flack for my stance on Global Warming, which is that the scientific community is not totally unified in lockstep consensus behind Al Gore and his Inconvenient Truth assertions.

This article just published is case in point to my position that there is considerable room for debate and discussion.  This time it is not some nutty right wing pundit or theologian or someone easily dismissable by the eco-leftists.

This time it is Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.   I will publish his op-ed in full.

(Thanks to Sister Toldjah and ST reader Ryan)

Don’t Believe the Hype

Al Gore is wrong. There’s no "consensus" on global warming.

According to Al Gore’s new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we’re in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms–unless we change the way we live now.

Bill Clinton has become the latest evangelist for Mr. Gore’s gospel, proclaiming that current weather events show that he and Mr. Gore were right about global warming, and we are all suffering the consequences of President Bush’s obtuseness on the matter. And why not? Mr. Gore assures us that "the debate in the scientific community is over."

That statement, which Mr. Gore made in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC, ought to have been followed by an asterisk. What exactly is this debate that Mr. Gore is referring to? Is there really a scientific community that is debating all these issues and then somehow agreeing in unison? Far from such a thing being over, it has never been clear to me what this "debate" actually is in the first place.