The decision was a case of gross judicial activism -- telling a school board what they can and can't include in the curricula of their schools. Parents who are offended by the idea of intelligent design being broached in a science class have the option of electing new school board members. The judge should have kept his nose out of it. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our federal judiciary.
"The decision was a case of gross judicial activism -- telling a school board what they can and can't include in the curricula of their schools. Parents who are offended by the idea of intelligent design being broached in a science class have the option of electing new school board members. The judge should have kept his nose out of it. This is a perfect example of what is wrong with our federal judiciary."
Have you paid any attention to this case, or are you opposed to the findings based on knee-jerk reaction, grounded in your personal belief?
First, school boards do not have the right to include anything they want in their curricula. They must adhere to standards and laws, as long as they are a public, tax-supported organization.
Second, the judge did not "put his nose in it" - a case was brought before the courts by the plaintiffs, in this case parents who sought to hold the school board to said laws and standards.
Third, the voters in the district DID elect new board members, en masse apparently.
And fourth, gosh! you're right! How dare those darn courts adjudicate laws!