Posted on 01/06/2006 8:07:53 AM PST by MRMEAN
The Dover Area School District might learn as early as next week how much it owes in legal fees for its losing court battle over intelligent design.
Those fees will exceed $1 million, said Witold Walczak, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that represented 11 Dover parents who successfully sued the district to have the intelligent design policy rescinded.
Walczak and another lawyer involved in the case said they were uncertain whether the fees would approach $2 million. He said the total could be known as early as next week or by the end of the month.
A federal judge last month ruled that Dover's policy on intelligent design was religiously motivated and in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which bars government from forming or endorsing a religion. In his ruling, U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III held the district liable for legal fees.
The Dover policy required that ninth-grade students be told that evolution is "not a fact" and that intelligent design is an alternative explanation to the origin of life. Proponents of intelligent design say that some aspects of the universe and life are so complex that they might be the work of an unspecified intelligent designer.
In related news, the district formally discharged the law firm that represented it in the intelligent design trial and will refer all legal issues on the matter to its solicitor -- who warned the school board more than a year ago against adopting the intelligent design policy.
The solicitor, Stephen Russell, said in an interview that he will recommend that the school board not try to seek reimbursement of legal fees from former board members who advocated adoption of the intelligent design policy.
"I have a problem with board members being sued for taking actions that are later found to be wrong," Russell said. "Nobody would run for office."
Nor should the district try to recover legal fees from the Thomas More Law Center, the Christian law firm that represented the district in the case, Russell said.
The district's insurance carrier probably won't pay anything toward legal fees, in part because the school board last year rebuffed the insurer's offer to provide lawyers to represent the district in the intelligent design case, Russell said. The district instead retained the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the district at no charge.
"I'd be surprised if the insurance company would help the district," Russell said.
The insurer also might be dissuaded from making a payout based on the written warning Russell gave to district Superintendent Richard Nilsen on the subject of intelligent design on Aug. 27, 2004, two months before the school board adopted the policy.
In the e-mail to Nilsen, unveiled during the trial in Harrisburg, Russell said, "It may be very difficult to win the case" because it would be perceived that the intelligent design policy "was initiated for religious reasons."
Russell said yesterday he was pleased that Jones agreed with him but not surprised. He said several school board members "were hell-bent on getting what they wanted."
Russell informed the Thomas More Law Center on Wednesday that its services were no longer needed by the board, which on Tuesday voted to rescind the intelligent design policy and not appeal Jones' ruling.
"We're officially done," said Richard Thompson, president of the law center. "This case cried out for an appeal, and it was developed for an appeal. But basically, there are no options at this point."
Seven school board candidates opposed to the intelligent design policy were swept into office by Dover voters in November, four days after the six-week trial ended. An eighth candidate, also opposed to the policy, was elected this week in a re-election held in one precinct because of an apparent voting-machine malfunction.
After the lawyers who represented parents opposed to the Dover policy tabulate their legal fees, they will present them to Russell. If the two sides can negotiate an agreement, the case will end.
Parents in the district were represented by the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the Pepper Hamilton law firm in Philadelphia. As many as six Pepper Hamilton lawyers -- including one whose hourly rate is $400 -- were in the courtroom during parts of the trial.
If the two sides can't agree on legal fees, the district could take the issue to court, before Jones. If he were to rule against the district, it would be responsible for paying any additional fees incurred by the plaintiffs to address the fee issue in court.
"This is not about skewering the school district," Walczak said. "This is about recovering our fees."
At the ACLU, "We don't charge our clients," Walczak added. "Very few people can afford to fight in court on matters of principle. The fact we are willing to do cases at no cost to our clients is an important guarantee of constitutional rights."
In December 2004, Pepper Hamilton, the ACLU and Americans United offered not to seek legal fees if the district dropped its intelligent design policy. The district refused.
Russell said a budget surplus and shifting of spending priorities could help defray some of the legal fees. He said some people have inquired about making donations to help cover the costs.
BILL SULON: 255-8144 or bsulon@patriot-news.com.
Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other "sins" are invented nonsense. Hurting yourself is not sinful--just stupid.Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973
This problem is nothing new. Below is a quote from St. Augustine as he struggled with an attempt to figure out what the literal interpretation of Genesis meant:
"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and the moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to be certain from reason and experience. Now it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and they hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make confident assertions [quoting 1Ti. 1:7]."Mistakes, typos, mine.
- St. Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, 1:42-43.
Your post #162 is one excellent post...I have copied that for myself, for further reference...thanks so much for that...
No response from DBeers. Funny how cockroaches scurry when you turn on the light.
I assume Dimensio can fend for himself AND if I missed responding or did not respond clearly to something then he is free to query me.
As to cockroaches -I would term the anti-Christian posters more as wolves that travel in a pack -you are a bit late to the 'discussion' but feel free to join in with something substantial -something beyond mere insectual name calling...
Regardless -the light is on -feel free to give me YOUR best shot...
LOL
Thanks for the ping!
There are actual judicial activists, but they are nowhere nearly as common as some would have you believe.
Excellent post. Also...
And even more frequently, "junk science" is nothing more than a buzzword used to describe a scientific conclusion someone doesn't like and doesn't understand the science behind. Many creationists include the overwhelming bulk of mainstream science, not just evolution, in this category.
There is junk science, but it is nowhere nearly as common as some would have you believe.
They are indeed beautiful and highly apposite words by St Augustine that still ring true 1600 years later.
For what its worth I have attempted to use those words numerous times with creationists, but remarkably not one of them seems to have the slightest interest in the thoughts of one of the fathers of the church on the issue.
You don't fool me, in the night the earth loses the energy again.
Interesting. This is a common form of argument against evolution, though it rests on several fallacies that have doubtless been pointed out to you before, and will be pointed out to you again.
I am intrigued however. What if you had a crisis and lost your faith. (Perhaps imagine a hypothetical situation where you become appalled by the repeated lies of those who profess to be Christian ;) ). Would you teach your children different morals under such circumstances? Would you behave differently (from a moral point of view)?
I am intrigued however. What if you had a crisis and lost your faith. (Perhaps imagine a hypothetical situation where you become appalled by the repeated lies of those who profess to be Christian ;) ). Would you teach your children different morals under such circumstances? Would you behave differently (from a moral point of view)?
I have not actually stated my evolution and or ID position at least on this thread. I am a Christian -more specifcally a Catholic and I believe completely as the Church teaches.
As such and in regards to evolution I would probably agree with all that evolution posits that does not contravene or contradict what the Church teaches. You might be surprised regarding my beleiefs as to any fallacies that you may wish to attribute me and Catholics in general -feel free to point out your assumptions and I will given time do my best to respond.
As to a pssible crisis that might cause me to lose my faith -that could never happen as I am one of those fortunate and or unfortunate eneough to have had a brief moment of ecstasy -I have no doubt that God exists -never will have any doubt. This from my perspective is both a blessing and a curse -a blessing in that I have no doubt and a curse in that I can no longer ignorantly pursue some things and or avenues that I once may have -no more delusion for me --both a joy uplift and a cross to carry...
As to my children -the answer in general is that wrong actions are always wrong -regardless the actions each and every human being created in God's image merits dignity and respect. Of course there are some whose actions regrdless of respect due them merit just discrimination e.g. one does not leave thier children with a sexual predator...
ChristiansGoneWild placemark
I believe by "creationists" you mean "scientific researchers in the area of stem cells". Common mistake.
Nutcases get sued.
Cool!
I've never been able to find a good online translation of that text, just bits and pieces here and there. Anyway, here are two websites that have the portion you quoted. I plan to include maybe one of them in The List-O-Links:
True, until the green plants allowed the Earth to become a net importer of energy.
No, the stem cell guys just lied for money and fame. Note that their debunking did not come from the creationists but from other stem cell workers. The guys who falsified the stem-cell results deserve the same scorn as those who lie for creationism and those who support them.
I've gotten accustomed to "activistjudge" as one word, now I see it's been extended to "ignorantactivistjudge". I guess G.W. Bush was way off with THAT appointment? :)
This is sad for the students and parents of this school district but it is great news for students in the rest of the country. Now other school boards will think twice before forcing the teaching of "Intelligent design".
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.