To: PatrickHenry
Ping...It seems to me the new board did not rescind the ID policy of the old board specifically because they wanted to have a court decision that was obviously going to be against the policy. If there was no decision, a future board could bring it back. But now it seems like the IDer's are coming up with conspiracy theories that it was all about getting $$ to the ACLU via legals fees if there was a court decision instad of an out of court settlement.
4 posted on
06/17/2006 12:45:30 PM PDT by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
8 posted on
06/17/2006 12:56:45 PM PDT by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: doc30
It seems to me the new board did not rescind the ID policy of the old board specifically because they wanted to have a court decision that was obviously going to be against the policy. If there was no decision, a future board could bring it back. But now it seems like the IDer's are coming up with conspiracy theories that it was all about getting $$ to the ACLU via legals fees if there was a court decision instead of an out of court settlement. You remember correctly. I'll see if I can find an old thread on this issue, but it's clear that the important thing was to get an injunction against the unconstitutional policy. A mere withdrawal of the policy at that point would have accomplished nothing, and the legal fees would still have been awarded. There was no way to stop that. This is typical Discovery Institute spin.
9 posted on
06/17/2006 1:00:47 PM PDT by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
To: doc30
12 posted on
06/17/2006 1:16:56 PM PDT by
PatrickHenry
(Unresponsive to trolls, lunatics, fanatics, retards, scolds, & incurable ignoramuses.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson