Posted on 12/12/2006 8:52:13 AM PST by editor-surveyor
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com
A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.
One year ago, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' 139-page ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover declared unconstitutional a school board policy that required students of a ninth-grade biology class in the Dover Area School District to hear a one-minute statement that said evolution is a theory and intelligent design "is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."
University of Chicago geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert called Jones' ruling a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" while lawyer Ed Darrell said the judge "wrote a masterful decision, a model for law students on how to decide a case based on the evidence presented." Time magazine said the ruling made Jones one of "the world's most influential people" in the category of "scientists and thinkers."
But an analysis by the Discovery Institute, the leading promoter of intelligent design, concludes about 90.9 percent – 5,458 words of his 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science – was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to Jones nearly a month before his ruling.
"Judge Jones's decision wasn't a masterpiece of scholarship. It was a masterpiece of cut-and-paste," said the Discovery Institute's John West in a phone conference with reporters yesterday.
West is vice president for public policy and legal affairs for the group's Center for Science and Culture, which issued a statement saying, "The finding that most of Judge Jones' analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones' examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design."
(Excerpt)
Nope, that's how it works. I've been following SCO v. IBM for quite a while, and I read all of the court documents. I often see the winner of a motion have his words in the order verbatim -- that is when the judge doesn't just ask the winner to write the whole order in the first place. In any case, the judge ipso facto accepts the winning side's arguments, so the judge can reword the winning arguments in his decision, or simply use those convincing arguments verbatim.
The Discovery Institute's lawyers know this, and John West, their VP of legal affairs quoted in this, definitely knows. They're just putting this out to curry public favor among those who know nothing about how the courts work (obviously many, given the posts here) by portraying themselves as the victim of an unscrupulous judge.
Unfortunately, their defamatory spin probably doesn't constitute libel since their claims are technically true.
This is nothing unusual. The cases and analysis are what they are, regardless of who wrote them. There are any number of criminal appellate opinions that I am familiar with that are taken verbatim from the prosecution briefs.
Exactly.
It should come as no surprise that the Discovery Institute is as dishonest about the law as they are about their own "research."
The point here is not that the judge took the winning lawyers' arguments. It is that he allowed himself to be praised for his great opinion, and took credit for its creation. This judge is an empty suit (robe).
In that case it is very similar to the theory itself then.
Never, ever let a thing like being 'technically true' stand in the way of a good opinion.
Eggs act lee!(with quotes around the "great")
I imagine that when the judge caught the Creationist people lying under oath and on the stand meant that he wasn't going to copy them (read the transcript if you have not heard of that -- they directly lied about who paid for the books in question).
A shopped-for (liberal) judge
You are factually incorrect.
The judge is a Republican, appointed by W. The "shopping" was done by the Discovery Institute, who went looking for a school district foolish enough to provoke a lawsuit. They couldn't get their program in schools on its own merit, so they decided to use the courts.
If you're going to spin, please at least stay within visual distance of the facts.
"Unfortunately, their defamatory spin probably doesn't constitute libel since their claims are technically true."
Never, ever let a thing like being 'technically true' stand in the way of a good opinion.
The facts of the case are true.
However, pretending that this is somehow unusual or unexpected is either gross ignorance of the law or an outright lie. You may choose which it is, based on how charitable you're feeling today.
But never let a thing like quote-mining get in the way of good spin, Dan. ;)
You really don't get it? - This case proves that assumption false. The lies won.
It isn't.
I appreciate the correction.
So when a court's bias causes lies to prevail it's ok?
Typical coyoteman BS.
So when a court's bias causes lies to prevail it's ok?
You have demonstrated neither court bias or lies on the part of the winning side.
The judge is a Republican, appointed by W. The only group caught in a lie was the Discovery Institute (it's always the money trail that catches you).
You are factually incorrect.
Not surprising of course, but the Discovery Institute had nothing to do with the school district policy. They were on record as opposed to such policies. They were in the case as a 'friend of the court' to keep the facts straight.
Don't bother to read the issues, it would spoil your 100% incorrect record here.
Hmm. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Thanks.
Excellent point! I sorta missed that...
LOL!
Wow! If you hadn't noticed, W tends to be a rudderless ship on judicial appointments.
Is it the money trail that is catching you? How much are you getting paid to pop up with empty nonsense here?
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.