Via Stop the ACLU:

Flying pig moment: The infamously liberal 9th Circuit Court actually gets one right!

The court found that the monument did not have a solely religious purpose. “Nothing about the setting is conducive to genuflection,” Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for a three-judge panel.

She noted that the Everett monument does not have nearby benches or evening lighting and is surrounded by trees and that impair its viewing. Such a setting prevents a visitor from concluding that the monument has been placed in a sacred space on public grounds.

The monument was donated in 1959 by a national civic organization that distributed more than 150 such monuments to cities across the country.

The notion that these monuments commemorating the Judio-Christian rooted symbol of law is somehow establishing a religion or even imposing one is absurd to begin with. Any precident from a faulty decision to follow this ridiculous argument is flawed to begin with. I find it rather silly that the lack of lighting and the view being obscurred by surrounding trees was even a consideration in this decision, however the I can’t complain about the final outcome other than the possibility future decisions may be influenced from precident set here by such silly reasoning.

A huge win for the Administration in the 9th Circus Circuit Court:

In this  just released this morning, three Judges of the Ninth Circuit, including one of the most liberal anti-government judges in the Country, Harry Pregerson, sided with the Administration on its asserting of the “State Secrets” privilege in a lawsuit brought by Islamic groups and others against both the government. and the telecommunication companies that helped put in place the terrorist surveillance program that involved the use of warrantless wiretaps.

…

In this case the Court held that the government had properly invoked the State Secrets privilege with respect to document(s) and information which the plaintiffs would need to proceed with their suit – such as confirmation that the plaintiffs had been the target of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and the details of how the program operated.   

 Money quote from p. 22 of the pdf:

For those not paying attention, a long running battle in San Diego has forced the city to defend itself from a disgruntled athiest who is demanding the city remove a 29-foot cross at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial.

This is one of those cases where I have to wonder why the person at the center of this, Philip Paulson is really doing this.

This is a war memorial, and if you honestly do not expect some sign of religious imagery, then you are being foolish.  The cross has stood there since 1913 for crying out loud.  Why is it such a threat to this guy?  Is it really worth all the fuss he has poured into this?

Since 1989 every attempt the city has made to preserve this memorial, all of which are supported overwhelmingly by the community has ended in a court with a judge overturning them.  It sickens me frankly.

Here is the latest chapter.

9th Circuit Court denies stay in Mt. Soledad cross lawsuit; supporters remain hopeful

UPDATED BELOW 

Seems like we just cannot trust this guy about anything.  Now he wants a do over on his trial, because despite his announcements to the contrary, he isn’t really guilty:

Moussaoui asks for new trial

Less than a week after he was jailed for life over the September 11 attacks, Al-Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui submitted a motion asking to withdraw his guilty plea so he can have a new trial.

"Moussaoui wishes to withdraw his guilty plea because when he entered the plea his ‘understanding of the American legal system was completely flawed’," his lawyers said in the motion. 

Translation:  I didn’t think I would lose even though I said i was guilty. 

 Moussaoui said in an affadavit "I now see that it is possible that I can receive a fair trial" in the United States.

Um, you already did.  Had it been unfair, you would be swinging from a rope now.

"Even with Americans as jurors," he went on, "I can have the opportunity to prove that I did not have any knowledge of and was not a member of the plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings on September 11, 2001."

This is a good news/bad news situation in a way.  

Initially when I read the headline I thought "wow they did something conservative!".  But then I read on and realized that it is possible they sacrificed one suit to pander to a larger one.

Gay couple can’t contest marriage definition

A federal appeals court today dismissed a challenge by two Orange County men to a law denying federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples, saying a couple that isn’t legally married under state law has no right to contest the federal definition of marriage.

Sounds simple, but then….

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reached the result urged by gay-rights groups, which opposed the federal suit because they are trying to overturn California’s marriage law in state court.  (emphasis mine)

So this was a loss to the couple but a strategic win to the gay rights movement?

The central issue in the case was the validity of the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. The law reserved federal marriage benefits — joint tax filing, Social Security survivors’ benefits, immigration status and numerous other marital rights — to opposite-sex couples. Another provision allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed in another state or a foreign nation.

As a child there was nothing more fun in grade school then singing those wonderful patriotic songs.  This Land is Your Land, America, America the Beautiful, God Bless America, The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the mother of them all, the Star Spangled Banner.  The room would shake with the voices of us wee bairns singing our hearts out.  Loudness was more present then accuracy, but heck we were enthusiastic.

Now days I think you would be harder pressed to find that happening, but the Star Spangled Banner remains legend in it’s own right.

In the Air Force there were not too many days where I did not hear it played.  When the music played we stopped whatever we were doing, we saluted the flag and we maintained silence and respect.  Like my views about the flag,  I admit I am somewhat biased about the Anthem.

But even the general public treasures their Anthem.  Sung at sport events, played to honor athletes at the Olympics and even the rock instrumental versions by Boston and Hendrix: It is timeless.  Whitney Houston, in her glory years. brought the nation to its knees with her rendition years ago, and Roseanne Barr brought the same nation to its feet in anger with hers.

In a divided 2/1 ruling, the 9th Circus Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that homeless people essentially have a right to sleep on the sidewalk.  It should come as no surprise that the suit was brought by the ACLU.

Justices Hand L.A.’s Homeless a Victory

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Los Angeles Police Department cannot arrest people for sitting, lying or sleeping on public sidewalks on skid row, saying such enforcement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment because there are not enough shelter beds for the city’s huge homeless population.

The long-awaited decision effectively kills Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton’s original blueprint for cleaning up skid row by removing homeless encampments that rise each evening throughout the 50-block downtown district. That plan has been on hold for three years, and city leaders have recently backed a less aggressive policy.

 The ruling also has implications for police agencies around the nation that have grappled with how to deal with the homeless.