Posted on 02/22/2006 6:52:51 AM PST by Nextrush
The Dover Area school board voted Tuesday night to pay 1 million dollars in legal fees to the attorneys that successfully sued the school district over its intelligent-design policy.... After board members voted, Beth Eveland, one of the parents who sued the district, told the board she and other plaintiffs at the meeting considered it a fair offer. However, she said they were dismayed that the taxpayers and children were left with the bill and believed the old board members should be held accountable. The smallest amount of accountability is an apology, she said.... Heather Geesey, the only remaining member from the previous board, said after the meeting that she took offense to Eveland's remarks. "I don't think I have anything to apologize for," she said. Former board member Ronald Short also isn't planning to apologize. "I don't have anything to apologize for," Short said. "I believe in what the board did before." The $1 million dollar figure was the result of an agreement worked out between plantiffs' attorneys and the district's solicitor. In exchange, the board agrees it will not appeal.... Rothschild, the plantiffs lead attorney, said lawyers will request an order in court entitling the plantiffs to more than $2 million in costs.... Plaintiffs attorney wanted to make sure that other public school districts pondering whether to pursue a religious agenda will think twice, Rothschild said, We think it's important that the public record will reflect how much it costs to stop an unconstitutional action," he said. "Still, we also recognize that this is a small school district."...... Approximately $250,000 will go directly to recovering out-of-pocket expenses, Rothschild said, and will be divided among American Civil Liberties Union, Americans United for Separation of Church and State and Pepper-Hamilton. The rest will go toward the ACLU and Americans United.....
(Excerpt) Read more at ydr.com ...
There simply was no need for the ACLU to get involved. Best they be kept from the courts anyway. They have their own "religious agenda" anyway.
I think they're the same thing. One possible aspect of holographic principle (remember, not a theory, but a conjecture, a mental exercise) is the basis for the new age "Holographic Universe" idea, yet another "theory of everything" that doesn't usually go over too well in science.
Exactly my point. The ACLU would not have gotten involved had the school board not attempted stealth creationism. I think you have your timeline reversed. Look no further than the school board for fault on this one.
They don't teach that in my church ~ is it taught in yours?
I think the big problem is the ACLU has a whole lot of folks who fear somebody somewhere might at some time or the other say "In Jesus Name".
They really don't care about science, if you get my drift!
Has anybody checked their immigration status?
The judge didn't have any legal authority to question the motivations of any of the parties, much less base his decision on such considerations, because one's motivation is irrelevant to the issue of the showing of a secular PURPOSE. It's a case of an ideologue judge who apparently could not distinguish between motivation and purpose.
Cordially,
I have no problem with vouchers. I made sure my kids got to the schools I wanted. I drove them across town myself.
So that's why we need the Second Amendment more than ever.
That was pretty much his job as agreed to by the school board.
Of course not in a general sense, but if your religious beliefs have something to do with the case at hand you'd better talk.
It's simply not up to the school board to determine the constitutional obligations and limitations of the judge.
We have secular courts with secular rules. Doesn't matter if the plaintiffs agree to make the judge Pope!~ He's taken an oath and must stick to it.
Ummm, I think they're homegrown.
Oh, darned.
I read part (about a third) of The Holographic Universe on recommendation of a friend who was convinced that it was a good idea. He was quite annoyed at my "close-mindedness" when I told him I thought it was basically New Age pseudoscientific BS. I remember the author (Michael Talbot) making bizarre claims about how humans can use mind control on computers and how he witnessed objects spontaneously floating in midair. Really ridiculous stuff (though there's no significant push to teach this garbage in public school science classes...)
Not only that, but he had the hubris to decide demarcation criteria for science that philosophers of science have been unable to agree upon. Do those who favor this ACLU victory really want courts determining what is or is "not a scientific theory"?
Cordially,
I submit that so-called conservative former members of the Dover School Board who lied under oath "can be wrong."
But that's the problem: We're not a democracy. We're a constitutional republic. In a constitutional republic, the democratically-elected representatives are constrained by the constitution, as applied by the courts. Darn Constitution! Darn judges! Darn law of gravity! Darn law of supply and demand! Darn arthritis... :-)
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.