Obviously, Justice Kennedy’s assertions carry no weight with you. The USSC did not have the District and Appelate Court rulings before it as to the legitimacy of the cross’ placement on public land, and therefore couldn’t rule on it. The Court did not affirm the District and Appelate rulings for the simple reason, it could not:
The procedural history of this litigation must be considered to identify the issues now subject to review. The District Court granted the 2002 injunction after concluding that a cross on federal land violated the Establishment Clause. The Government unsuccessfully challenged that conclusion on appeal, and the judgment became final upon completion of direct review. At that point, the judgment “became res judicata to the parties and those in privity with them, not only as to every matter which was offered and received to sustain or defeat the claim or demand, but as to any other admissible matter which might have been offered for that purpose.” Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Bailey, 557 U.S. ___, ___, 129 S.Ct. 2195, 2205, 174 L.Ed.2d 99 (2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Government therefore does not—and could not—ask this Court to reconsider the propriety of the 2002 injunction or the District Court’s reasons for granting it. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8870140163481666320&q=salazar+v.+buono&hl=en&as_sdt=2,23&as_vis=1
Beyond Justice Kennedy’s comments, quoted previously, the Court went to the trouble of citing prior decisions respecting long-standing religious symbols, in addition to religious symbols equated with sectarian purposes:
Time also has played its role. The cross had stood on Sunrise Rock for nearly seven decades before the statute was enacted. By then, the cross and the cause it commemorated had become entwined in the public consciousness. See ibid. Members of the public gathered regularly at Sunrise Rock to pay their respects. Rather than let the cross deteriorate, community members repeatedly took it upon themselves to replace it. Congress ultimately designated the cross as a national memorial, ranking it among those monuments honoring the noble sacrifices that constitute our national heritage. See note following 16 U.S.C. § 431 (listing officially designated national memorials, including the National D-Day Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial). Research discloses no other national memorial honoring American soldiers—more than 300,000 of them—who were killed or wounded in World War I. See generally A. Leland & M. Oboroceanu, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics 2 (2009). It is reasonable to interpret the congressional designation as giving recognition to the historical meaning that the cross had attained. Cf. Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677, 702-703, 125 S.Ct. 2854, 162 L.Ed.2d 607 (2005) (BREYER, J., concurring in judgment) (“40 years” without legal challenge to a Ten Commandments display “suggest that the public visiting the [surrounding] grounds has considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage”). ibid
In short, the Court went as far as it could, in the specific case before it, to say that it wasn’t going to entertain any on-going efforts to sweep long-standing religious symbols on public property. And, it went so far as to cast doubt on the original plaintiff’s standing to file the original law suit as well.
That isn’t just a Solomonic decision (nice religious reference, on your part), but a thorough beat-down of the assertion that private land, “is the only appropriate place for religious memorials of any kind.”