Posted on 06/05/2006 4:53:41 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
John E. Jones III is using the intelligent-design debate to answer his critics and talk about judicial independence.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III could have taken the safe route and retreated to the privacy of the courthouse after issuing his landmark ruling in December against intelligent design. Most judges are loath to go public about their cases at all, let alone respond to their critics.
But Jones - angered by accusations that he had betrayed the conservative cause with his ruling, and disturbed by the growing number of politically motivated attacks on judges in general - came out from his chambers swinging.
"I didn't check my First Amendment rights at the door when I became a judge," Jones said in a recent interview.
While keeping his normal caseload, Jones has embarked on a low-key crusade to educate the public about the importance of judicial independence. He has been flooded with more invitations than he can accept to speak to organizations and schools about issues that arose from the Dover, Pa., case on intelligent design and other emotionally charged cases.
Edward Madeira, a senior partner with Pepper Hamilton L.L.P., which represented Dover plaintiffs, described Jones as the perfect ambassador for a more visible judiciary.
"God bless him," said Madeira, who serves with Jones on a state panel on judicial independence. "He came out of the case with a real concern about the lack of understanding of the role of the judiciary and has become a person who spends time very effectively talking about it."
So far, Jones has delivered his message on at least 10 occasions, speaking to high schools and colleges, mostly in Pennsylvania. In February, he addressed the national conference of the Anti-Defamation League in Florida.
Jones had anticipated he would be targeted by hard-line conservatives after concluding that teaching intelligent design in public schools as an alternative to evolution was unconstitutional.
But he was surprised by how ignorant some of his critics were, in his view, about the Constitution and the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
Jones said he had no agenda regarding intelligent design but, rather, was taking advantage of the worldwide interest in the case to talk about constitutional issues important to him.
"I've found a message that resonates," he said. "It's a bit of a civics lesson, but it's a point that needs to be made: that judges don't act according to bias or political agenda."
One particularly strident commentary piece by conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly, published a week after the ruling, really set Jones off.
Schlafly wrote that Jones, a career Republican appointed to the federal bench by President Bush in 2002, wouldn't be a judge if not for the "millions of evangelical Christians" who supported Bush in 2000. His ruling, she wrote, "stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."
"The implication was that I should throw one for the home team," Jones said. "There were people who said during trial they could not accept, and did not anticipate, that a Republican judge appointed by a Republican president could do anything other than rule in the favor of the defendants."
Jones, 50, who is based in Williamsport, Pa., was finishing his second year on the court when he was assigned the Dover case.
Looking beyond that trial now, Jones said he was concerned about the growing number of politically motivated threats against judges, including himself, that demonstrate "a lack of respect and a lack of understanding of what we do."
He rattled off a string of incidents that occurred last year: The murder of a Chicago judge's husband and mother by a disgruntled litigant. The oral attacks - led by congressional Republicans - against a Florida judge who ruled that Terri Schiavo could be removed from her feeding tube. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter's suggestion that U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be given "rat poison" for voting to uphold Roe v. Wade. (Coulter later added it was only a joke.)
And an e-mail death threat that Jones received shortly after the Dover ruling caused him to seek U.S. Marshal's Service protection for the first time.
"Judges are really unnerved by this," Jones said. "My wife couldn't walk the dog without a marshal walking beside her in the days after case was decided."
He wants to remind audiences, he said, that the judicial branch was not designed to react to public opinion as the executive and legislative branches were.
"If a poll shows a majority of Americans think we should teach creationism in schools, we should just go with the flow?" he asked. "There's this messy thing called the Constitution we have to deal with."
Since his Dover ruling, Jones has returned to the routine on the federal bench. He stayed the execution of a murderer, sent a sex offender to prison to "ratchet down his libido," and is preparing for a white-collar criminal case that is sure to thrust him back into the national spotlight this fall.
Jones is scheduled to preside over what may be the largest tax-fraud case in U.S. history when Adelphia Communications founder John Rigas and his son Timothy - already convicted in a separate fraud case - appear before him to face charges they evaded $300 million in taxes.
ONLINE EXTRA
Read Judge John E. Jones III's speech to the Anti-Defamation League via http://go.philly.com/jones
You are neglecting to mention that the defendants in the case specifically requested a ruling to this effect.
I didn't see the motion, but even if they did, it doesn't excuse him taking them up on it, or his Judge Elvis routine. If they'd told him to jump off a building, would he have done that, too? (Maybe so.)
It's just not his job to decide what is science, and considering what he said about the Constitution, I'm not sure he should be talking about the law, either.
placemarker
"Not really."
Yes, really. Evolution isn't atheistic. No science is.
My point is that atheists are entitled to their point of view in a public domain, and efforts to squelch their message by law are misplaced. Whether you accept the fact or not, there are atheists in public schools, and there are atheists who espouse the philosophy of evolution. There are also people from every walk of life whose interpretation of the facts is multifaceted. All of them may enjoy a hearing in the public domain. The Constitution does not prohibit as much.
When creationists speak, you may contest their ideas freely, or you may hold you hands over your ears and pretend not to hear. But to invoke the law of the land in order to give your own point of view special treatment - that is a sign you do not hold the intellectual high ground, but instead wish to use the public domain as a tool for indoctrination.
"My point is that atheists are entitled to their point of view in a public domain, and efforts to squelch their message by law are misplaced."
My point was that this has nothing to do with atheists. Evolution isn't atheistic.
Not always, but it can be.
You didn't read the decision either. You should at least TRY to understand what you are griping about before making a fool of yourself in public.
but even if they did, it doesn't excuse him taking them up on it, or his Judge Elvis routine.
He was required to "take them up on it". That was exactly what this case was about. Judge Elvis? What the heck does that mean?
If they'd told him to jump off a building, would he have done that, too? (Maybe so.)
Did your momma teach you that one?
It's just not his job to decide what is science, and considering what he said about the Constitution, I'm not sure he should be talking about the law, either.
Since you say that you didn't "read the motion", and it is clear that you didn't read the decision, and it is also obvious that you didn't read the perjurous testimony on the part of the school board, I doubt that you've ever actually read the constitution. (Reading does seem to be a problem with you). Therefore, I'll trust the judge's decision over your misguided opinion.
Actually, the ACLU and Judge Jones seem to want to let SCIENCE determine what science is. But that probably doesn't incite the fundies, so better to distort the truth for the sake of an ulterior motive.
In fact, the CRIDers want to tell us what is and isn't science, without the bother of, like, scienctific work and stuff.
That it is or is not interesting is a matter of opinion. That it is irrelevant is not.
Check out how many of the ACLU-worshipping FRee thinkers have slavishly cut and pasted Patrick Henry's close-minded rant of a FReeper page and made it their own.
I'll bet those same Hitler/Stalin/Mao-loving, homo-atheistic, child-abusing poodle-beaters also have similar DNA, as if The DesignerTM cut-and-pasted it for efficiency's sake.
Brings a whole new meaning to the term "free thinker."
I wonder how your Creator would feel if you directed that sarcasm in His direction for the same "offense"?
So is it your own idea of "what has be learned about the world" that should, by law, enjoy exclusivity in the public domain?
__________
You do remember that this case was about the goings on in science class right? When you use phrases such as "exclusivity in the public domain", it makes me think you forgotten that.
I don't think the judge in this case outlawed discussions of anything anywhere, other than keeping not-so-thinly veiled creationism out of the science classroom.
It is their constitutional right and human right to disbelieve and avoid exposure to science. [snip] I call this a human rights violation. Since children are involved, it is child abuse.
__________________
You have an extremely low threshold for child abuse. Learning as child abuse. Wow.
If someone really doesn't want their kids to learn science as it is taught today, they absolutely need to homeschool.
No science at all?
What are they going to do for a living, pick crops?
The threat of force is implied wherever the government is involved. But, unless you are an anarchist, you are in favor of SOME form of government social program.
Should peaceniks (sp?) be forced to fund the armed forces? Should the PETA nuts be forced to fund anything involving animals (because anything done to animals is cruel to the PETA-fundies)? Should non-religious people be forced to compensate for the tax-exemption subsidy afforded religious institutions (except, interestingly, the religion of secular humanism, which is or isn't a religion depending on the argument of the anti-secularist)?
There are many other examples, and I'm sure an argument can be manufactured against any of these points. I'm willing to bet, though, that such an argument could then be turned back onto the arguer's pet social program.
"If someone really doesn't want their kids to learn science as it is taught today, they absolutely need to homeschool."
No science at all?
What are they going to do for a living, pick crops?
Hey, if anything is "child abuse," I'd say that sabotaging the education of your kids would qualify.
Sadly, fear of science is why some people choose to homeschool. Not all, but any at all is too many.
Oh, well. As the saying goes, somebody has to ask my kid if he "wants fries with that." These parents are just making sure that the job is filled.
There are many other examples, and I'm sure an argument can be manufactured against any of these points. I'm willing to bet, though, that such an argument could then be turned back onto the arguer's pet social program.
No, no, no.
Don't you know? Pork is funding the other guy's pet projects.
My personal desires are all fully Constitutional and worthy of massive Federal and State funding. ;)
Now, now: there's no "I" in "constitution".
Er, wait a minute...
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.