Posted on 12/20/2005 10:49:02 PM PST by TheEaglehasLanded
John Edward Jones III is a Republican, Jones was appointed by President George W. Bush as federal judge on the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in February 2002 and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate on July 30, 2002. Previously ran for Congress in 6th district of PA.
Made the correct ruling and is stabbed in the back by so-called conservatives....
Well, you can always look on the bright side. If in the future voters have the good sense to resist voting for ID dissemblers to begin with, rather than waiting to toss the losers out after the damage is done (as they did in Dover), then we won't need any more judges to rule on the inanity of ID.
He concluded that the school board had a religious intent in trying to insert ID into the science curriculum. His decision was based in part on a 1987 SCOTUS decision concerning creationism. That came into play when the school board members attempted to introduce a text that contained 150 references to creationism and creationists as a scientific text. He also managed to embarrass the ID proponents by pointing out that many of the fine upstanding Christian board members LIED in their testimony.
I held my reactions in check until I read the actual opinion. Just spent the last two hours reading all 139 pages plus footnotes.
As a non-lawyer, Conservative Christian science enthusiast inclined to a sympathetic view of ID, here's my take:
1. It's an astonishingly well written articly, painstakingly argued and understandable to a layman - even in the intricacies of the "lemon test". I learned a lot reading it.
2. It's clear that the judge went over and above to elicit testimony from experts on both sides and to examine all of the evidence.
3. It's clearly not a activist opinion. It's just not.
4. It's devastating on the point of the actions and motives of the school board and the specific ID policy in question. Even as someone favorable to ID, the judgement on this particular school board, and this particularly worded policy, is obvious.
I'll have to spend more time reflecting on the opinion. There's a lot there. I'd encourage everyone to take time to read it.
I misread your post to me and thus misspoke - my apologies.
He also managed to embarrass the ID proponents by pointing out that many of the fine upstanding Christian board members LIED in their testimony.
_____________________________________________________
Sorry but this judge was an IDIOT. He was being the activist knew it and LIED in his opinion.
1. Had he been a good modest judge, he would have delayed until the new board changed the cirrculum and then declared the issue moot. Instead he charged right in and decide that he would decide the cirriculum in a local school district.
2. Lying in testimony is a matter for a JURY to decide not a federal court judge unless someone is charged and waives a jury trial.
3. Lying while calling other people liars is not particularly good judical temperment.
4. Notice represenative government worked here and the people were making the change and did not need any judge to help. The CA sex survey case the judges were modest and essentially said, if you don't want the school board asking your 6 year old about sex, vote in a new school board.
Judges don't get to determine local school cirricula. Unless the ID component tried to establish a particular religion, the Judge is likely to be reversed. And at the very least he unnecessarily makes it look like the Judiciary is anti-Christianity. As I began, what an IDIOT and LYING IDIOT at that.
Don't worry about it. I've been accused of having an ax to grind against Christians for a very long time over this issue. I really despise issues like this because it tends to bring out the very worst in all people....including those who call themselves Christians, yet use lies and deceit in an attempt to promote an agenda. They're no different than the leftists who've hijacked environmental science in the name of global warming.
Spare me the sour grapes. Several of the school board members lied in their testimony and bullied and harassed people who stood in their way. You may support and loudly applaud that type of behavior but I will condemn it every chance I get.
BTW, you may have stayed at a Holiday Inn once...but you're no expert on the law.
It's "Intelligent Design".
Sorry, jess35, but I might even agree with you that ID should not have been put in the cirriculum depending on how it was done.
The judge was a hypocrite for calling any one a liar when in his opinion he lied and said he was not being activist. He was the very stereotype of activism, declaring a moot or soon to be moot issue unconstitutional. Modest judges don't make decisions when one is not called for. Activist judges jump right in and decide cirriculum matters at a local school level.
You are typing like a results oriented liberal activist. Results are not suppose to matter in judicial cases. And modest unactivist judges do not decide moot issues.
Both Bush and the judge did the right thing. Quit trying to twist a logical judgement to prevent publishers of a charlatan book to sneak garbage into science class into an attack on religion. Religious people don't need charlatan books published in Seattle and know you can't lie your way into heaven.
Fine, just allow all parents to pay to send their kids to the school of their choice.
They can decide if they want their kids taught that they evolved from rats by chance, or if they were created.
Only have vouchers for the poor. None of this send your money to Washington and get a small rebate stuff.
""The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin's theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, 'Of Pandas and People', is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."So the real question is this: Do you think that a reading of the above statement in a public school violates the text of the Constitution which reads "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."?
Seems like quite a stretch to me to suggest that a mere reading of the above statement constitutes an "establishment of religion". But I have found that most people would rather avoid the debate on Constitutional textualism and rather hide behind their personal preferences on the peripheral debate between creationism vs. intelligent design.
If you are not a Constitutional textualist, fine. I can respect this decision if you begin with the notion of having a "living, breathing" Constitution that is subject to judicial whims as to what constitutes good social policy. But if you think that Constitutional interpretation demands a reasonable interpretation of the plain meaning of the text, then I don't see how you can think this is a good judicial decision.
This debate in this case is about Constitutional interpretation - not the wisdom of evolution vs. intelligent design.
Funny, you sound like a liberal whiner all of the sudden. Is it because the school board was caught lying in the service of God and you're upset at the negative reaction to that news....or because you lack the basic comprehension to understand what happened in this case? I suspect it's the latter. You lost, and you're willing to tar the name of a good man because you see him as the devil incarnate for refusing to ignore the law of the land and setting faux creationism up as the scientific standard for all of America's school children. You lost and you will continue to lose.
Perhaps you'd like to brush up on the facts of the case.
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.