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.

The Washington monolith shares its property with only one war memorial, and attorneys had hoped the difference would be enough for a new verdict.

“Religious items displayed by themselves are generally impermissible,” said Ayesha Khan of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. “This monument stands pretty much alone, and in that context, it presents a religious message.”

But the 9th Circuit panel said it did not agree, especially because no complaints were received for more than 30 years after the monument was erected.

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:

“Having reviewed it in camera, we conclude that the Sealed Document is protected by the state secrets privilege, along with the information as to whether the government surveilled Al-Haramain. We take very seriously our obligation to review the documents with a very careful, indeed a skeptical, and not to accept at face value the government’s claim or justification of privilege. Simply saying “military secret,” “national security” or “terrorist threat” or invoking an ethereal fear that disclosure will threaten our nation is insufficient to support the privilege. Sufficient detail must be—and has been—provided for us to make a meaningful examination. The process of in camera review ineluctably places the court in a role that runs contrary to our fundamental principle of a transparent judicial system. It also places on the court a special burden to assure itself that an appropriate balance is struck between protecting national security matters and preserving an open court system. That said, we acknowledge the need to defer to the Executive on matters of foreign policy and national security and surely cannot legitimately find ourselves second guessing the Executive in this arena.

Hard to find a place in there anywhere for a “Bush/Cheney are worse than Hitler” jibe. 

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

Supporters of the 29-foot cross displayed at the Mount Soledad National War Memorial in San Diego picked up both a defeat and a victory June 21 as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals chose not to suspend a $5,000 daily fine that a federal judge will impose if the cross is not moved, while California’s 4th District Court of Appeals said it will expedite a hearing on supporters’ behalf.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. ruled in May that the city of San Diego would be fined for each day the cross remains on public grounds after a 90-day period that is set to expire Aug. 1. The city, led by Mayor Jerry Sanders, appealed the ruling, but the 9th Circuit refused to step in and grant a stay until appeals currently pending in state courts can he heard.

But there is still hope:

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."

Despite the fact I said I was and said I did.

"I wish to withdraw my guilty plea and ask the court for a new trial to prove my innocence of the September 11 plot," he said.

A jury rejected prosecutors calls for a death penalty last Wednesday and called for the 37-year-old Frenchman to be jailed for life without chance of parole after he admitted six charges of conspiracy over the September 11 attacks.

Moussaoui decided on Friday, while waiting to be transferred to a super-maximum security prison in Colorado, that he wanted to change his plea, his lawyers said in documents submitted to a federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, where his trial was held.

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.

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.

Both the federal law and the state law were challenged in a 2004 suit by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Mission Viejo after they were twice denied a marriage license. The men, both 46, have been together since 1997. They argued that the laws violate their constitutional rights of equal protection, privacy and freedom of association.

A federal judge upheld the federal law last June after ruling that Smelt and Hammer had the legal standing to challenge the law because they had registered as domestic partners with the state. Unbeknownst to the judge, however, the two had notified the state in December 2004 that they were dissolving their domestic partnership and wanted to be recognized as a married couple.

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.

It is powerful, emotional and inspiring.

And of course, controversial.

Spanish Version of 'Star-Spangled Banner' Draws Protests

British music producer Adam Kidron says that when he came up with the idea of a Spanish-language version of the U.S. national anthem, he saw it as an ode to the millions of immigrants seeking a better life.

Take a moment to savor the irony of a Brit wanting to use the Anthem, considering it's place in our history.  More on that later.

But in the week since Kidron announced the song — which features artists such as Wyclef Jean, hip-hop star Pitbull and Puerto Rican singers Carlos Ponce and Olga Tanon — it has been the target of a fierce backlash.

Some Internet bloggers and others are infuriated by the thought of the "Star-Spangled Banner" sung in a language other than English.

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.

Although Los Angeles' policy was considered one of the most restrictive in the nation, other communities have tried milder variations of the same approach. Las Vegas and Portland, Ore., for example, bar sleeping or standing on a sidewalk or other public space only if it obstructs pedestrians or cars, and Seattle, Tucson and Houston limit the hours of enforcement, the opinion said.

City officials said Friday that the ruling makes it likely that the LAPD will move forward with a more moderate skid row policing plan, one that would crack down on crime while allowing cardboard cities.

Ok....to start with, we have to be clear that homeless people come in all shapes and sizes. 

Some admittedly are the mentally ill, alcoholic or drug users we see in stereotypical tv roles.  But is leaving them in dangerous and unhealthy environments really the best thing? 

Some are simply people in a bad streak of fortune.   My initial response is sympathy, for I like most middle class people have had hard times, and I have personally come closer to that state then I am comfortable admitting.