Sharp debate at high court over cross on US land
Lawyer Blogs
As the Supreme Court weighed a dispute over a religious symbol on public land Wednesday, Justice Antonin Scalia was having difficulty understanding how some people might feel excluded by a cross that was put up as a memorial to soldiers killed in World War I.
"It's erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead," Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. "What would you have them erect?...Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?"
Peter Eliasberg, the American Civil Liberties Union lawyer arguing the case, explained that the cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity and commonly used at Christian grave sites, not that the devoutly Catholic Scalia needed to be told that.
Related listings
-
Man pleads not guilty to north Dublin murder
Lawyer Blogs 10/12/2009A Dublin man has pleaded not guilty to murdering an Estonian man who died following an attack in a lay-by near Dublin Airport.Twenty-eight-year-old Ian Daly, of Moatview Drive, Priorswood, Dublin 17, today entered his not guilty pleas to murdering Va...
-
UK hacker's latest US extradition appeal fails
Lawyer Blogs 10/09/2009A British man accused of hacking into American military computers has failed in his latest bid to avoid extradition to the U.S., his lawyer said Friday. Gary McKinnon is charged with breaking into dozens of computers belonging to NASA, the U.S. Defen...
-
Court hears arguments about cross on park land
Lawyer Blogs 10/07/2009The Supreme Court appeared divided between conservatives and liberals Wednesday over whether a cross on federal park land in California violates the Constitution.Several conservative justices seemed open to the Obama administration's argument that Co...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.