Slim Pickens placemarker.
Posted on 02/27/2006 3:56:55 AM PST by PatrickHenry
In this case. the school board and scientists had contrasting positions and they called the judge and lawyers in to decide the case for them. You can't fault the judge for doing his job in that situation.
You haven't read the decision: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.. Excerpt:
On December 14, 2004, Plaintiffs filed the instant suit challenging the constitutional validity of the October 18, 2004 resolution and November 19, 2004 press release (collectively, "the ID Policy"). It is contended that the ID Policy constitutes an establishment of religion prohibited by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages, costs, and attorneys' fees.[skip]
The parties are in agreement that an applicable test in the case sub judice to ascertain whether the challenged ID Policy is unconstitutional under the First Amendment is that of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), (hereinafter "the Lemon test"). See Edwards, 482 U.S. 578 (applying Lemon test to strike down Louisiana's "Creationism Act"); see also Epperson, 393 U.S. 97 (considering the purpose and the primary effect of an Arkansas statute forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools).
Why?
The school board was approached early and persuaded to adopt the ID curriculum precisely because everyone knew a lawsuit would result. The board believed, irrationally, that they would win such a case, and in any event it would attract much media attention which would bring donation dollars to the pro-ID organizations (which no doubt was the real motivation).
A number of Dover parents bravely did their duty and stopped the imposition of religion into public schools. The had a right to their day in court, and they got it.
That your side lost and now you say the judge should have refused the case smacks of Sore Loserman.
I thought conservatives wanted judges to rule on the basis of law and not personal opinions brought in from outside the courtroom.
You'll note that the legally elected board was legally elected out after this debacle.
This case was clearly within the bounds, heard by a conservative judge, and decided in a way you object to.
You have yet to clearly state a good reason this case should not have been heard.
The site you linked to certainly has a lot of detailed info, and I agree with the overall idea of parental choice through private education.
However, I have several serious concerns regarding the cost and funding info this site describes. For instance, it identifies the average tuition costs of private schools at $2,500-$3,000 in order to make its plan of wholly funding educational subsidies to the poor by charitable donations viable. However, they selectively only took the average tuition for religious schools (which are already subsidized by the affiliated churches) into consideration - the sectarian counterparts have tuition costs well over triple the working figure. Furthermore, unless the donations all go to a general pool that disburses the funds to all qualifying students to do what they wish with it, the parents will still not have real choice as they will be dependent on the wishes of the donating entities, i.e. if they want funding, they have to attend the favored school of the benefactor.
The only way I see that a private school system can replace the public one is if it can attain the goal of placing the choice of educational values in the hands of the parents without excluding any children because of economic limitations or religious/sectarian preference. This means that the source of financing tuition subsidies must be able to guarantee enough cash, and those contributing must be willing to fund educational choices they may not agree with. I fear an all voluntary contribution system will not be able to satisfy both of these requirements at the same time.
You're questioning the essence of the trial system. A judicial decision must be based on the record that is presented at the trial. That's the reason we have trials -- to present evidence for the court's consideration. If a decision isn't supported by the record it can be overturned on appeal.
If Creationists understood ID they would not be defending it. While ID wants to give God or Martians credit for designing the bacterial flagellum (a device whose primary function is killing infants and children), ID proponents accept the mainstream science estimate of the age of the earth and they accept common descent.
There's slim pickings left for the typical creationist.
To be fair, I think S's point *may* have been that Christianity was opposed by the political establishment but eventually dominated western governments and culture and similarly ID is opposed by the scientific establishment but S forecasts a win in the future.
...Which assumes the law is always right, which I disagree with in principle, and I would disagree that everything outside a courtroom is opinion only. That statement doesn't even begin to float. Facts are what we want, and for the judge to, in some cases arbitrarily exclude some facts doesn't make much sense to me.
Our system of government specifically tempers the desires of the majority with a requirement to respect the rights of the minority. If the issue that gets voted in violates this tenant, then there must be recourse to overturn it. This is not 'circumventing the will of the legally elected body', it is upholding the ideals that make up the very core of our political structure.
What commie judge is that then? Presumably not the conservative GW Bush appointee who heard the Dover case.
I disagree. I think many (if not most) of them, well aware of what ID is, see it as a way to wedge the door open so that the appallingly pseudoscientific monstrosity of young-earth creationism can subsequently slide on through. (i.e. the enemy of one's enemy is one's friend)
You certainly aren't referring to the Dover case. Nothing was excluded, and both sides had expensive counsel and lots of time.
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.