Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

From RationalWiki
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Conservapedia response to perjury: NPoV)
(Criticisms of the Case: minor NPoV problems, tense, stripped out numerous adjectives, fuzzy writing)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
Creationists have also criticized the [[ACLU]], an ''[[amicus curiae]]'' in the case, for the fact that the plaintiffs requested attorney's fees as a damages award against the school district in the case.<ref>See [[cp:ACLU|ACLU on CP]].</ref>  However, not only did the ACLU not have control over this (lead counsel was not the ACLU, but the private law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP), but this is also a standard remedy.<ref>See 42 U.S.C. §1988, providing attorney's fees as a standard award in any § 1983 suit.</ref>
 
Creationists have also criticized the [[ACLU]], an ''[[amicus curiae]]'' in the case, for the fact that the plaintiffs requested attorney's fees as a damages award against the school district in the case.<ref>See [[cp:ACLU|ACLU on CP]].</ref>  However, not only did the ACLU not have control over this (lead counsel was not the ACLU, but the private law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP), but this is also a standard remedy.<ref>See 42 U.S.C. §1988, providing attorney's fees as a standard award in any § 1983 suit.</ref>
  
Judge John E. Jones III, the presiding judge in the case, has been pejoratively tagged as an "activist judge" for his role in the case.<ref>Andrew Schlafly considers him biased, as noted [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Deceit#Andy....3F.21 here].</ref>  However, John E. Jones is a Republican, and a conservative one at thatIn fact, lead plaintiff's counsel feared that this would impact the case negatively for the anti-intelligent design side,<ref>See Humes, ''supra''.</ref> and at least one ID-proponent was confident that Jones would rule in their favor for political reasons.  During the trial, DaveScot, then a co-blogger at [[William Dembski|William Dembski's]] "Uncommon Descent" blog, wrote  
+
Judge John E. Jones III, the presiding judge in the case, has been pejoratively tagged as an "activist judge" for his role in the case.<ref>Andrew Schlafly considers him biased, as noted [http://www.conservapedia.com/Talk:Deceit#Andy....3F.21 here].</ref>  However, John E. Jones is a Republican and a conservative.  Lead plaintiff's counsel feared that this would impact the case negatively for the anti-intelligent design side,<ref>See Humes, ''supra''.</ref> and at least one ID-proponent was confident that Jones would rule in their favor for political reasons.  During the trial, DaveScot, then a co-blogger at [[William Dembski|William Dembski's]] "Uncommon Descent" blog, wrote  
 
{{cquote|This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves.
 
{{cquote|This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves.
  
 
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick [[Santorum]] is a [[Pennsylvania]]n in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.<ref>Comment on Dembski's blog [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/#comment-8210 here].</ref>}}
 
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick [[Santorum]] is a [[Pennsylvania]]n in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.<ref>Comment on Dembski's blog [http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/life-after-dover/#comment-8210 here].</ref>}}
  
In essence, the "Uncommon Descent" blogger hopes for an opinion motivated by Jones' (perceived) distaste with evolution.  In short, the blogger hoped for what Scalia would call a "willful judge," or one who lets his personal opinion get in the way of the law.  Apparently an activist judge is fine, as long as he is pro-intelligent design.  Put differently, the only non-activist judge is one who agrees with everything the [[Discovery Institute]] says.  Jones took issue preemptively with the "activist judge" label in his written opinion, where he wrote:  
+
In essence, the "Uncommon Descent" blogger hoped for an opinion motivated by Jones' (perceived) distaste with evolution, what Scalia would call a "willful judge," or one who lets personal opinion get in the way of the law.  In the blogger's neo-conservative opinion, an activist judge is fine, as long as he is pro-intelligent design and agrees with the [[Discovery Institute]]'s agenda.  Jones took issue preemptively with the "activist judge" label in his written opinion, where he wrote:  
  
 
{{cquote|"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers [**173] of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref>Kitzmiller, at 765.</ref>}}
 
{{cquote|"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers [**173] of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."<ref>Kitzmiller, at 765.</ref>}}
Line 33: Line 33:
 
Jones' obvious anger was provoked by the same deceit noted above.
 
Jones' obvious anger was provoked by the same deceit noted above.
  
Creationists also criticize Jones' opinion as being 90% copied from the ACLU's briefs,<ref>See one example [http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_Design#Opposition here].</ref> though a statistical analysis found the actual amount as low as 35%.<ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis "A Conversation With Mark Mathis,"] ''Scientific American''</ref>  Nonetheless, close examining of the similarities reveals that only the "findings of fact" in the opinion are accused of being "cut and pasted," not the entire opinion as the [[Discovery Institute]] deliberately misrepresents.  It should be noted that incorporation of a brief in an opinion's findings of fact is actually quite standard and entirely appropriate, and is simply an indication that one side was persuasive. <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis "A Conversation With Mark Mathis,"] ''Scientific American''</ref>
+
Creationists criticized Jones' opinion as being "90% copied from the ACLU's briefs"<ref>See one example [http://www.conservapedia.com/Intelligent_Design#Opposition here].</ref> (though a statistical analysis found the actual amount more like 35%).<ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis "A Conversation With Mark Mathis,"] ''Scientific American''</ref>  Nonetheless, close examining of the similarities reveals that only the "findings of fact" in the opinion were thus transcribed, not the entire opinion as the [[Discovery Institute]] misrepresents.  It should be noted that incorporation of a brief in an opinion's findings of fact is standard and appropriate, and is often used by the court to avoid a duplication of effort where the argument coincides with judicial opinion. <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=a-conversation-with-mark-mathis "A Conversation With Mark Mathis,"] ''Scientific American''</ref>
  
Another common allegation is that the ruling was unfair, as it "prohibited appeal."<ref>This is another one of Andrew Schlafly's odd statements, viewable [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=next&oldid=120040 here].</ref>  Yet any attorney will tell you that no judge can foreclose appeal.  ''Settlements'', agreed upon by the parties and signed by the judge as a formality, ''may'' foreclose appeal, but this type of agreement is by definition consensual by both parties.  The true opinion that ''Kitzmiller'' was not appealed, though, is much simpler, yet more interesting.  The defendants in ''Kitzmiller'' were the members of the Dover School Board, in their official capacity.  They alone could have appealed the decision, only in their official capacity as a school board.  Yet, by the time the case concluded, the Dover school board had been replaced by pro-science, anti-intelligent design members in a local election. As a result, individuals sympathetic to the plaintiffs had replaced the creationist school board.  Obviously, they would not have appealed a decision favorable to them.<ref>See Humes, ''supra'', afterword.</ref>
+
Another common allegation is that the ruling was unfair, as it "prohibited appeal."<ref>This is another one of Andrew Schlafly's odd statements, viewable [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Deceit&diff=next&oldid=120040 here].</ref>  No judge can foreclose appeal.  ''Settlements'', agreed upon by the parties and signed by the judge as a formality, ''may'' foreclose appeal, but this type of agreement is by definition consensual by both parties.  The fact that ''Kitzmiller'' was not appealed is interesting.  The defendants in ''Kitzmiller'' were the members of the Dover School Board, in their official capacity.  They could have appealed the decision in their official capacity as a school board.  However, by the time the case concluded, Dover voters had replaced the pro-creationist school board with members more in line with with residents' wishes. Without a pro-creationist agenda, the new school board saw no need to appeal a decision they were in favor of.<ref>See Humes, ''supra'', afterword.</ref>
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==

Revision as of 13:21, 9 August 2008

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.
400 F. Supp. 2d 707
Decided: 2005


Contents

Introduction

Kitzmiller originated when the Dover Area School District in Dover, York County, Pennsylvania, under the leadership of Bill Buckingham, a creationist, decided to "challenge" evolution.

Holding of the Court

Using the Lemon v. Kurtzman test, the court found that intelligent design was primarily religious and fostered unnecessary entanglement of church and state. The court further found that intelligent design is not science.

Deceit in the Case

The testimony of Dover School Board members in the Kitzmiller case, who lied in affidavits and on the stand to protect the Intelligent Design policy, was deceitful and an example of creationists willing to bend the truth to see their own agenda furthered at all costs.

"One consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID… We disagree." – Judge John E. Jones III [1]

One of the primary forces behind the intelligent design policy, Alan Bonsell, went above and beyond in this respect, offering testimony so suspicious and facetious that the judge called a halt to the cross-examination. These two citations are but two characteristic examples.[2]

Conservapedia response to perjury

Conservapedia purges any reference to this outright perjury from their site. The given reasons for these deletions was that the deceit in this case were mere opinion, Judge Jones' damning footnote apparently notwithstanding.[3] Conservapedia editors justify the omission by saying that the opinion is "biased" and non-binding.[4] However, the judgment was binding.[5]

Criticisms of the Case

Creationists have also criticized the ACLU, an amicus curiae in the case, for the fact that the plaintiffs requested attorney's fees as a damages award against the school district in the case.[6] However, not only did the ACLU not have control over this (lead counsel was not the ACLU, but the private law firm, Pepper Hamilton LLP), but this is also a standard remedy.[7]

Judge John E. Jones III, the presiding judge in the case, has been pejoratively tagged as an "activist judge" for his role in the case.[8] However, John E. Jones is a Republican and a conservative. Lead plaintiff's counsel feared that this would impact the case negatively for the anti-intelligent design side,[9] and at least one ID-proponent was confident that Jones would rule in their favor for political reasons. During the trial, DaveScot, then a co-blogger at William Dembski's "Uncommon Descent" blog, wrote

This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves. Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too.[10]

In essence, the "Uncommon Descent" blogger hoped for an opinion motivated by Jones' (perceived) distaste with evolution, what Scalia would call a "willful judge," or one who lets personal opinion get in the way of the law. In the blogger's neo-conservative opinion, an activist judge is fine, as long as he is pro-intelligent design and agrees with the Discovery Institute's agenda. Jones took issue preemptively with the "activist judge" label in his written opinion, where he wrote:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers [**173] of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."[11]

Jones' obvious anger was provoked by the same deceit noted above.

Creationists criticized Jones' opinion as being "90% copied from the ACLU's briefs"[12] (though a statistical analysis found the actual amount more like 35%).[13] Nonetheless, close examining of the similarities reveals that only the "findings of fact" in the opinion were thus transcribed, not the entire opinion as the Discovery Institute misrepresents. It should be noted that incorporation of a brief in an opinion's findings of fact is standard and appropriate, and is often used by the court to avoid a duplication of effort where the argument coincides with judicial opinion. [14]

Another common allegation is that the ruling was unfair, as it "prohibited appeal."[15] No judge can foreclose appeal. Settlements, agreed upon by the parties and signed by the judge as a formality, may foreclose appeal, but this type of agreement is by definition consensual by both parties. The fact that Kitzmiller was not appealed is interesting. The defendants in Kitzmiller were the members of the Dover School Board, in their official capacity. They could have appealed the decision in their official capacity as a school board. However, by the time the case concluded, Dover voters had replaced the pro-creationist school board with members more in line with with residents' wishes. Without a pro-creationist agenda, the new school board saw no need to appeal a decision they were in favor of.[16]

See also

External Links

References

  1. Judge John E. Jones III, Republican, in Kitzmiller, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707, n.7 727.
  2. Edward Hume, "Monkey Girl," especially chapters 14-17, available here for purchase.
  3. See CP's history on the "Deceit" article here.
  4. See notes of Andrew Schlafly here.
  5. LexisNexis and Westlaw, as of 28 May 2007, note positive history & legal treatment of the case - NOT negative.
  6. See ACLU on CP.
  7. See 42 U.S.C. §1988, providing attorney's fees as a standard award in any § 1983 suit.
  8. Andrew Schlafly considers him biased, as noted here.
  9. See Humes, supra.
  10. Comment on Dembski's blog here.
  11. Kitzmiller, at 765.
  12. See one example here.
  13. "A Conversation With Mark Mathis," Scientific American
  14. "A Conversation With Mark Mathis," Scientific American
  15. This is another one of Andrew Schlafly's odd statements, viewable here.
  16. See Humes, supra, afterword.
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support