Posted on 12/18/2005 6:55:53 AM PST by Right Wing Professor
Driving home one day last December from the courthouse in Harrisburg, Pa., Judge John E. Jones III tuned in to a radio news report about 11 parents in the nearby town of Dover who had filed a lawsuit challenging their school board's decision to include intelligent design in the high school biology curriculum.
"It piqued my curiosity," the judge said. Not only was the suit likely to be the nation's first full hearing on the legal merits of teaching intelligent design, but it also had been filed in the federal court in Pennsylvania where he was serving.
"Any judge will tell you that they welcome the opportunity to have important cases on their dockets," he said in an interview. "That's why they take these jobs."
Judge Jones presided over the six-week trial with discipline, decorum and a quick wit that produced eruptions of laughter....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Legal experts said the big question was whether Judge Jones would rule narrowly or more broadly on the merits of teaching intelligent design as science. ... One of his clerks hinted last week that the decision was long.
ping!
I'll be waiting to see this decision. Should be interesting, and may be a precedent for other cases.
Anxiously awaiting the arrival of the trolls living in denial.
|
That article has a link to most of the trial documents and transcripts of testimony.
And here's the proposed FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW submitted by the plaintiffs at the end of the trial.
Won't set a precedent unless it's appealed. Assuming he rules against the school board, the chances of them appealing are nil.
It might be cited as a finding in other cases, but I don't know how much weight that carries.
I first met Judge Jones about a decade ago. He practiced law in a rural Pennsylvania county and fell on his sword more than once for the Republican Party establishment. This included running unsuccessfully in several races against entrenched Democrat incumbents.
He was appointed by Governor Tom Ridge (the first Director of Dep't of Homeland Security) to the position of Chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board...he did good work there (note: Bible thumpers don't get this job). A couple years ago, Bush rewarded him with an appointment to the federal bench.
True, it won't be a binding precedent. But if it's a devastating defeat for the ID side, with a comprehensive set of findings as to why ID isn't science and therefore can't be officially presented in a science class without violating the First Amendment, it will definitely have a big effect. Remember, the ID side gave it their best shot, with all their top guys as witnesses. So even if there's no appeal (assuming the school board loses) you can be sure the trial will be remembered as of great importance.
I believe you're right. I hope, however, the clarity of the verdict, and the legal bill, will give other school districts pause.
It will depend on whether he rules on the motives of the Dover school board, or on the motives of the ID movement.
If he rules on "Pandas" it will draaw some blood. What other potential textbook does the ID movement have?
Big Daddy?
In The Beginning.
Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn.
It's Coming!
He might order the defendants to evolve. O horror!
To which Judge Jones interjected, "Not on my docket."
At least this last comment was encouraging.
They're catching planes and raising money for media strategies.
The two sides in Dover Area School District's First Amendment court battle are gearing up for this nation's first ruling on the subject of intelligent design.
Plaintiffs' attorneys are planning a news conference in Harrisburg, in front of Pennsyl- vania's U.S. Middle District courthouse, where the case was held this fall. Scientists from the National Center for Science Education, which assisted plaintiffs in the case, are flying in from California for the announcement.
The publisher of the pro-intelligent-design book "Of Pandas and People," meanwhile, is urging its supporters to donate money for a media blitz to protect sales of its textbooks to schools.
Judge John E. Jones III's response to six weeks of testimony, encompassing everything from the Big Bang theory and the bacterial flagellum to the Cambrian Explosion, is expected early this week. Plaintiffs' lawyers and scientists say the ruling will likely be Tuesday.
Depending on how he rules, Jones' decision could have a lasting effect on the way biology is taught in schools across the country.
While plans for the news conference might indicate a certain confidence that the judge will rule in their favor, plaintiffs' attorneys will say publicly only that they remain cautiously optimistic.
"We feel very good about the case we presented," said Eric Rothschild, plaintiffs' lead attorney.
Meanwhile, defense lawyers say they're just going to wait and see what happens.
"There's not much that we can do," said Richard Thompson of the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center. "It's out of our hands."
Essentially, Jones could issue three rulings, legal experts have said.
He could rule in support of the school district's decision that intelligent design in high school biology class does not violate the First Amendment, thereby paving the way for the concept to be introduced in public schools across the country.
Or he could decide that intelligent design is unconstitutional because it's religion disguised as science. Such a decision could deliver a severe blow to intelligent design.
Since the completion of the trial, pro-intelligent-design organizations Foundation for Thought and Ethics and the Discovery Institute have been trying to dissuade the judge in amicus briefs from taking this position.
John West, a Discovery Institute spokesman, wrote in an e-mail, "If he addresses the larger questions about design in an unfavorable or inaccurate way, we obviously would be more concerned, although we ultimately think that the debate over design will be decided by the scientific evidence, not the courts."
Jones could also take a narrow view and decide the school board members were motivated by religion when they voted to include intelligent design in the biology curriculum, but avoid ruling on whether intelligent design is legitimate science.
Despite the fact that it would still be a blow to Dover, Jon Buell, Foundation for Thought and Ethics president, wrote in a fundraising letter last month, "that would be great news."
The publisher of "Pandas" sent out the letter urging its members to help raise $200,000 in order to "launch a marketing and publicity campaign" in the wake of the judge's decision.
However, on Friday, Buell said he had not finalized the campaign and was not aware the ruling is expected this week.
Buell said the campaign is necessary to counter the remarks of plaintiffs' lawyers, including those with the American Civil Liberties Union, who he calls "the Darth Vaders of the Darwinism-only plank."
The outcome of the case is also being watched closely by the science community. Pandasthumb.org, an online discussion group of scientists monitoring the evolutionary debate, had followed the trial closely under the heading "Waterloo in Dover."
Last week, a flurry of giddy posts speculated on the trial's outcome. The debate wasn't about whether Jones would rule in favor of Dover, but whether, as Buell fears, he will rule against intelligent design.
As one person wrote Thursday, "It's an early Christmas gift for us. All that remains to be seen is, will it be a little puppy or a big pony?"
Still, no matter the decision, Jones' ruling will not end the battle being waged over the teaching of science and religion in this country:
· In California, a Christian schools organization is legally challenging the University of California's admissions policy for religious bias. The university has rejected several science and humanities textbooks used by the schools, arguing they fail to meet freshman admission requirements.
· In Kansas, the state Board of Education ignored the protests of the scientific community and recently revamped its education standards to make way for the supernatural in science class.
In addition, state lawmakers there say they are considering hearings into anti-intelligent design remarks made by a University of Kansas professor. Paul Mirecki remains tenured but resigned as chair of the Department of Religious Studies, after he posted remarks on an Internet discussion site for student atheists that mocked fundamentalist Christians.
· And last week, an appellate court in Atlanta heard a case involving stickers placed on high school biology books telling students that evolution "is a theory not a fact."
I like that!
Still not fully confident of a decision in the favor of science (yet hopeful...)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.