RE: Dover Intelligent-Design Case

[Corcos, Christine]

May I suggest that before we all decide whether Judge Jones acted properly or improperly in “charging” members of the school board with doing this or that, or has improperly suggested that this person or that person lied, we should read the opinion? I’ve read it, and I’m going to read it again. He says a lot in those 139 pages.   Christine Corcos Associate Professor of Law Faculty Graduate Studies Program Supervisor Paul M. Hebert Law Center, Louisiana State University Associate Professor, Women's and Gender Studies Program LSU A&M W325 Law Building 1 East Campus Drive Baton Rouge LA 70803 tel: 225/578-8327 fax: 225/578-3677 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scarberry, Mark Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 1:04 PM To: 'Law & Religion issues for Law Academics' Subject: RE: Dover Intelligent-Design Case   I haven't yet read the opinion, and will reserve judgment about whether the judge's language shows bias. I do think, however, that it is improper for a judge to accuse elected officials of "activism," as this judge did. There is nothing wrong with elected officials being activists, whatever that term may mean, and whether or not we believe judges should be activists. Even if we might think Hamilton's view of the need for an "energetic executive" goes too far in taking power from the legislative branch - and thus might think that the executive may at times be improperly activist - here the officials in effect were the legislature for the school district. By charging the school board with activism, the judge has, in a small way, helped to undermine the people's understanding of how government should work.   Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law   -----Original Message----- From: Paul Finkelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 10:09 AM To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics Subject: Re: Dover Intelligent-Design Case   Jim, is there any chance after tons of testimony by people who actually know something about science, that this Conservative Republican Bush appointee just concluded that science ought to be left to people who know something about it, as opposed to activist organizations that want to thrust their religious views down the throats of everyone in the country? And that as a conservative he believes hard earned tax dollars should not be wasted implementing and defending unconstitutional programs that try to pass off theology as science?  I am sure you think it is unlikely that a Bush appointee could be persuaded by the facts, and that instead he must be a liberal activist out to attack all religion in America.  But, in this case, maybe the judge actually read the scientific evidence. Paul Finkelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 12/20/2005 12:39:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Jim,   As you well know, judges can form opinions after hearing the evidence.  And the 139 pages supports his conclusion in that even-tempered nature, free of bias, and with care-and-sensitivity- to-the -school-control-issues manner you are say you are concerned about.   Sorry you couldn't be bothered to inform yourself before forming an opinion about the judge.   Steve As I said, it will take a while to review the decision.  Honesty from the law professors already discussing this decision:  have you read the decision in FULL?    In fact, Ann popped a corker from the decision to the list.  Once I have read the decision in full, I will better know whether Ann did a disservice to the judge in her selection of snippet.  As it stands, the prose quoted by Ann leaves the impression of a certain bias on the part of the judge.    Jim Henderson Senior Counsel ACLJ             _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw   Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.   -- Paul Finkelman Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law University of Tulsa College of Law 3120 East 4th Place Tulsa, OK   74104-3189   918-631-3706 (office) 918-631-2194 (fax)   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.