Posted on 06/16/2006 3:43:58 AM PDT by Nextrush
Despite negative criticism, political jabs, disturbing threats and a recent internet posting stating that he's star-struck and on a world tour, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones candidly discussed-for the first time in the York area......the aftermath of the "epic" Dover intelligent-design trial.......
Jones said he was pleased to be at the York County Colonial Courthouse Wednesday on an invitation from the Herbert B. Cohen American Inn of Court meeting where he spoke to about 60 York attorneys and judges........
Jones said. "There are continuing attacks. I think judges and lawyers need to speak out...I've taken some incoming fire."
A flicker of that came from radio and television personality Bill O'Reilly who called Jones a fascist. We're dumbing down the public, Jones said of such negative criticism that shows how the public views judges. There's a lack of understanding...........
"Ann Coulter devotes a couple of pages in her book to me...and it's not an endorsement," Jones said, using the term "Ann Coulterized."
Politics must be checked at the door, Jones said of entering the courtroom as a judge........
"Judges need to understand fundamentally how tough it it out there," he said. "I enforce civility.".......
Jones was humble when he spoke of being named this year to Time magazine's 100 Most Influential People of the Year and attending a reception for the honor.
"The one time I have been star struck...I met Jennifer Lopez...She didn't want to talk about the Dover case either"...........
(Excerpt) Read more at ydr.com ...
Politics should be left out of the courtroom. Well, maybe if we could get rid of the precedents he cites maybe it would be.
Judge Jones says he was "Ann Coulterized." Is that a federal crime?
And don't forget "civility." Did he borrow that line from Hugo Chavez? Maybe Jones' next stop could be a bear hug from Fidel in Havana.
A friend of Tom Ridge and a G.W. Bush appointee to the federal bench, but no friend of the constitution or freedom.
Judge Jones isn't an activist - (because he said he wasn't).
The 1987 precedent was motivated by the biased political belief ("separation of Church and State") that traces its origins to the 1947 opinion of KKK Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black.
It should have been overturned by Judge Jones in allowing the disclaimer to be read in the science classes.
No one was banning evolution, but allowing other views to be heard. Nothing wrong with that in a free society where we have First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Civility 2005: "Speak not against Darwin! Not about G-d!"
A man who seems to have had a latent taste for fame, and now fills his cup with it. Fame, however, comes in many flavors, and now he complains of a few.
Still, to the fame-thirsty, in time, every flavor is craved.
The same could be said of Ann Coulter. So what?
You are trying guilt by (implied) association.
Doesn't work on me and I'll bet not on lurkers either.
How do you feel about the blatant perjury by the defendants?
ping
Perjury??? And who was charged with perjury?
It was displayed -and acknowledged- in court.
Read the transcript. I don't do other people's homework.
At heart of his "fame" is that those precedents have been long discredited and are soon to be overturned.
That makes him a tragic figure in a way. Also comic- since he doesn't realize he's pathetic not heroic.
Wisdom begins with the fear of God. The Commandments show up our sin and point the need for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. We place our faith upon Him alone for Salvation and begin to perceive the wisdom of God. From that point forward, one can always ask wisdom of God and expect to receive it.
Yes, Jones is an activist in the worst way. He has no more business intervening in the decisions of a school board with regard to course content than the Supreme Court had intervening in PGA rules. Neither had any special expertise to act as philosopher kings in their respective cases.
"I don't do other people's homework."
You don't have to, but you are required to document it when you accuse others of committing a felony crime. No drive-bys, please. Provide proof.
Perjury??? And who was charged with perjury?
It was displayed -and acknowledged- in court. Read the transcript. I don't do other people's homework.
That's an unfair (and, since perjury has and almost certainly won't be in this case, incorrect response to Tribune7's fair, simple and entirely appropriate question, to which the correct answer is, formally speaking, nobody. Perjury is a serious crime that requires intent and inconsistency upon cross-examination is no proof of it. It makes sense to never assume malice where mere disagreement, human fallibility or incompetence fits more simply, and for each of these reasons accusations of perjury without any grounding should be looked at with suspicion. As it happens, however, there is in fact good reason to believe that the Dover School Board members Bonsell and Buckingham did lie in Court-- about money issues and about their previous positions and discussions on Creationism. Of course, it should be noted that even before this issue came up, one of the strongest and most articulate advocates of ID in the Senate, Rick Santorum, on the advice of the ID think tank the Discovery Institute did not support the Dover School Board in this case and neither did the Discovery Institute itself. Of course that's not to say that Judge Jones acquitted himself well. Where a prudent Constitutionalist and judicial minimalist would have made a decision regarding the issue at hand, Judge Jones saw fit to issue sweeping pronouncements on science and religion's proper places-- that is to say, where Judge Jones personally saw fit to place them, with the implicit understanding that, since he is a judge, his personal opinion on such matters should be and therefore must be law.
On the other hand, one could (lamely) argue Judge Jones has not made an activist decision unless we think with, say, Janice Rogers Brown, that the duty of a judge is to follow the Constitution as it is written and was originally meant. Judge Jones feels his duty as a District Judge is primarily to follow precedent, or to say the same thing more charitably, to follow the Constitution, but always holding the constraints of precedent as absolute. That is how Judge Jones has characterized his decision.
However, Judge Jones's judicial philosophy is in fact renegaded. Precedent has its place, but Judge Jones is sworn to defend the Constitution, not precedent-- and in any event, precedent did not demand what Judge Jones gave, and honest anti-IDers who claim to be conservatives should admit as much. Judge Jones is not fit to decide the definition of science or religion, and even if he was, and even if the Constitution mandated the separation of science, religion and education, it doesn't follow that because ID is not science it must be religion-- one of many of Judge Jones's too-quick fallacious reasoning. Here are a few good articles from different points of view on the decision and perjury accusation:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/151/31.0.html http://www.ydr.com/doverbiology/ci_3330089 http://www.slate.com/id/2132807/
How do you feel about the blatant perjury by the defendants?
Perjury??? And who was charged with perjury?
It was displayed -and acknowledged- in court. Read the transcript. I don't do other people's homework.
That's an unfair (and, since perjury has not been and almost certainly won't be charged from this case, incorrect) response to Tribune7's fair, simple and entirely appropriate question, to which the correct answer is, formally speaking, nobody. Perjury is a serious crime that requires intent and inconsistency upon cross-examination is no proof of it. It makes sense to never assume malice where mere disagreement, human fallibility or incompetence fits more simply, and for each of these reasons accusations of perjury without any grounding should be looked at with suspicion. As it happens, however, there is in fact good reason to believe that the Dover School Board members Bonsell and Buckingham did lie in Court-- about money issues and about their previous positions and discussions on Creationism. Of course, it should be noted that even before this issue came up, one of the strongest and most articulate advocates of ID in the Senate, Rick Santorum, on the advice of the ID think tank the Discovery Institute did not support the Dover School Board in this case and neither did the Discovery Institute itself. Of course that's not to say that Judge Jones acquitted himself well. Where a prudent Constitutionalist and judicial minimalist would have made a decision regarding the issue at hand, Judge Jones saw fit to issue sweeping pronouncements on science and religion's proper places-- that is to say, where Judge Jones personally saw fit to place them, with the implicit understanding that, since he is a judge, his personal opinion on such matters should be and therefore must be law.
On the other hand, one could (lamely) argue Judge Jones has not made an activist decision unless we think with, say, Janice Rogers Brown, that the duty of a judge is to follow the Constitution as it is written and was originally meant. Judge Jones feels his duty as a District Judge is primarily to follow precedent, or to say the same thing more charitably, to follow the Constitution, but always holding the constraints of precedent as absolute. That is how Judge Jones has characterized his decision.
However, Judge Jones's judicial philosophy is in fact renegaded. Precedent has its place, but Judge Jones is sworn to defend the Constitution, not precedent-- and in any event, precedent did not demand what Judge Jones gave, and honest anti-IDers who claim to be conservatives should admit as much. Judge Jones is not fit to decide the definition of science or religion, and even if he was, and even if the Constitution mandated the separation of science, religion and education, it doesn't follow that because ID is not science it must be religion-- one of many of Judge Jones's too-quick fallacious reasoning. Here are a few good articles from different points of view on the decision and perjury accusation:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/151/31.0.html
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.