Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: PatrickHenry
Shocking! All the evidence showed that? And even the defense conceded it? And based on the evidence -- as conceded by both sides -- this activist judge dared to conclude that ID isn't science? Oh, how horrible! [emphasis added]

Did someone say "activist judge"? You mean, the staunch Republican judge appointed by staunch President Bush?

from pp. 137-138 of the Court's decision:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
[emphasis added]

Judicial activism is when judges make up law that doesn't exist. Judge Jones followed precedent every step of the way in his jurisprudence; in point of fact he had no choice; to do otherwise would have been an act of the very "judicial activism" for which his detractors have such contempt. The only "activists" in this case were the nutballs on the school board who lied and connived to change the science curriculum to suit their personal religious beliefs and preferences, and the dorks in the anti-Evo PR organizations and law firms who egged them on.

So far, no one who has disagreed with the Judge's ruling, has been able to cite the specific text from the ruling and explain how his jurisprudence was in error.

82 posted on 12/24/2005 10:00:53 AM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies ]


To: longshadow
So far, no one who has disagreed with the Judge's ruling, has been able to cite the specific text from the ruling and explain how his jurisprudence was in error.

No one? Perhaps you haven't been listening to or reading some of the legal scholars on this case, such as Judge Napalitano.

For a specific example, you might want to check out This Thread".

84 posted on 12/24/2005 10:21:46 AM PST by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson