NPR is reporting that the district court's decision is expected today.
Dan Conkle
**
Daniel O. Conkle
Professor of Law
Indiana University School of Law
Bloomington, Indiana 47405
(812) 855-4331
fax (812) 855-0555
e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Conkle, Daniel O. wrote:
NPR is reporting that the district court's decision is expected today.
Yes, and we're waiting on pins and needles here I can tell you. One of
his clerks told a newspaper that the ruling was quite long, which likely
bodes well for the plaintiffs and for a broad
The Washington Post has an article on this today (Tuesday, Dec. 20)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901802.htmlone of the interesting quotes:Today, secular Hollywood gives us Christmas shows and Christmas specials without end, not to mention Christmas-themed
If you can't get the decision from the court's website, it is available at:
http://www.stcynic.com/kitzmiller_342.pdf
It's a big, big win for the plaintiffs. A very broad ruling, exactly
what the plaintiffs wanted.
Ed Brayton
___
To post, send
Perhaps it is a holiday gift for those who celebrate the anniversary of
the birth of the son of the intelligent designer but don't think that
the intelligent design plan was really a science project?
Which leads me to the quesiton, isn't the whole concept of intelligent
design ultimately
Did you notice this part?"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their
Although I do not disagree
with the result in this case, I am troubled by the idea of judges deciding what
is or what is not science. As far as I can tell, a Kuhnian conception of
scientific change in principle supports the possibility of
intelligentdesign being understood as expanding the
Interesting point, Bobby, but since the claim is that ID is science, how does the court avoid the issue? This is just the obverse of the courts needing to decide, howsoever much discomfort is involved for all of us, what is religion from time to time, isn't it?And the court did not say that "only
In a message dated 12/20/2005 12:05:49 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
"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
Sounds like he's passionate about the Establishment Clause to me.
That is certainly appropriate for a jurist.
Marci
In a message dated 12/20/2005 12:20:09 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It will take me a while to review the decision, so I do
appreciate the
Paul,
I wouldn't blame religious activists for the state of the law in the
creche cases. It's the Supreme Court that created the
Santa-and-his-reindeer loophole. Surely the preference of activists
would be to simply place religious icons on public property without
added secular clutter.
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
The judge 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.
Has there ever been a Court that admitted
that it WAS activist? Is there a decision somewhere that says, This
I recognize the role of
expert witnesses generally is to present testimony according to which courts
decide factual and conceptual issues--although I probably have more skepticism
than others concerning such testimony and its place in litigation. My point is
that the same result is
Is it better to have a judge decide what is science, after lots of expert
testimony, than an elected school board after listening to constituents without
any scientific background? Now what would really be nice is to have the science
department decide what is science but that is likely to
One can be careful and sensitive about
intruding on the authority of local boards of education without abdicating to them.
If in a particular case a school board acts in plainly unconstitutional way
and a judge shoots it down, there is no proof that the judge is being
intemperate or less
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
Brad M Pardee wrote:
And
maybe it's just my untrained eye, but
when I see a judge referring to the defendandts as liars and
breathtakingly
inane, I find myself wondering how that is part of his job. His job
is to interpret the law, not to assess the moral fitness of people
whose
arguments
I think your restatement is exactly right. Thanks
Steve Sanders wrote:
Paul,
I wouldn't blame religious activists for the state of the law in the
creche cases. It's the Supreme Court that created the
Santa-and-his-reindeer loophole. Surely the preference of activists
would be to simply
Before we begin to see the inevitable character assassination here are some
facts about the judge:
Appointed by Bush in 2002
Previously was Chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (1995-2002)
and Co-Chairman of Tom Ridge's transition team (1994)
A recent New Yorker article on the
In a message dated 12/20/2005 12:46:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is it
better to have a judge decide what is science, after lots of expert testimony,
than an elected school board after listening to constituents without any
scientific background? Now what
In a message dated 12/20/2005 12:42:08 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
One can be careful
and sensitive about intruding on the authority of local boards of
education without abdicating to them. If in a particular case a school board
acts in plainly
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
Here is my blogging attempt to accurately
report on the case. http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2005/12/dover-school-district-loses.html
I would appreciate anyones comments
on inaccuracies or misinterpretations.
*
Howard M. Friedman
Disting.
One problem in this case, Paul, is that the school board in effect
didn't listen to anyone except representatives of two organizations
seeking a test case. The record, as explicated in the opinion, is one of
process severely lacking in full and open discussion. Several board
members testified they
In a message dated 12/20/2005 12:51:52 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Before
we begin to see the inevitable character assassination here are some facts
about the judge:
Frankly, I am perplexed. Surely you are not asserting
thatobservations about deliberate
The issue of lying reflected statements of fact, not theory or science or
theology. Two board members gave sworn testimony that conflicted not only with
the testimony of numerous other witnesses and other documents, but even with
their own testimony. It appears to be a by-product of some rather
Some of the listmembers seem to be losing sight of the fact that the judge wrote his opinion after a bench trial. It's completely appropriate for the trier of fact to state conclusions about the credibility of the witnesses and the motivations of various characters in the underlying events. I did,
Has there every been a court that copped to the plea of judicial activisim?
I'm not quite sure that it fits the bill, but I think Judge Wilkinson's
opinion in Brzonkala comes close to doing so, although he attempts to
justify the present wave of activism to which he refers. I would frankly be
I don't see any point in Judge Jones' decision where he imposes his views over the experts in science who were called to testify. I do not find this to be a case of a judge deciding what is or is not science, so much as a judge following accepted legal procedures in use of expert testimony.
Sincere apologies to Jim if I left the impression that he was engaging in
character assassination. I was anticipating a more general reaction from
conservative supporters of the teaching of ID in the science curriculum -- the
sort of reaction that the judge himself anticipated when he
It appears that the science teachers tried to bring some science before
the board but were unsuccessful and frustrated. It isn't clear whether
the board members who resigned had tried to bring science before the
board, because the facts focus on their objections to the process (and
to the way they
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,
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? Ive read it, and Im
going to read it
I think you may be being too abstract here, Mark. And I'm certain that you are exaggerating the impact of such language on the view of the electorate of how the government should work, whatever that may in fact mean.When a legislative body acts in a way that runs afoul of the Constitution, the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 12/20/2005 12:51:52 P.M. Eastern Standard
Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Before we begin to see the inevitable character assassination
here are some facts about the judge:
Frankly, I am perplexed. Surely you are not
Unfortunately, Ed Darrell
distorts my post. I never said or implied that Kuhn's theory of
sciencefavors intelligent design in any way at all." What I said was
"Ido not see any likelihood of intelligent design providing the thrust for
a paradigm shift concerning what is or what is not
Is it not accurate that the trier of fact may make determinations as to the veracity of the witnesses? I think that, if one reads the transcript, one might be astonished at the restraint Judge Jones used. It's one thing to deny a contested statement, another to deny it after it's been reported
A liberal education and a willingness to get educated to make such assessments. And an understanding that we always act on imperfect knowledge and understanding and an understanding that in some instances it is at least as important that things get decided as that they get decided correctly.The
Who would appeal this case? Not the current Dover School Board which, if I understand things correctly, revoked the policy and announced that they would follow the court's decision.Who else has standing?SteveOn Dec 20, 2005, at 3:15 PM, Ed Darrell wrote: Judge Jones was probably wise to
Steven Jamar wrote:
Who would appeal this case? Not the current Dover School Board which,
if I understand things correctly, revoked the policy and announced
that they would follow the court's decision.
Who else has standing?
They did not revoke the policy, but they did say they would
Perhaps. If he had stopped at saying he
believed they lied, that would be one thing. When the judge throws in the
accusation that they were breathtakingly inane, though, that doesn't sound like
the words of a trier of fact. That sounds like somebody with an axe to
grind against the
My apologies for any offense -- I did not mean to imply you said Kuhn favored ID; in fact you appear to be on the right side of Kuhn. I do weary of ID advocates who claim that, if we are to comply with the "rules" of Kuhn, we must allow ID to be taught. Kuhn took exactly the opposite view. Mr.
In a message dated 12/20/2005 3:16:15 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A
liberal education and a willingness to get educated to make such
assessments. And an understanding that we always act on imperfect
knowledge and understanding and an understanding that in some
Were there any interveners? Might
Discovery Institute intervene for purposes of appeal? .During the fight over equal
access, the Supreme Court held in Bender v. Williamsport ASD,475 US 534 that
a single school board member did not have standing to appeal a decision to allow
religious clubs
But the education one gets allows one to learn what must be learned to make an informed decision. It is not the degree, but the broad education and the ability and openness to further learning that matters. Not everyone has the intellectual horsepower to make these judgments in the way we might
The court identifies only two defendants: the Dover Area School District and the Dover Area School District Board.On Dec 20, 2005, at 3:36 PM, Marc Stern wrote: Were there any interveners? Might Discovery Institute intervene for purposes of appeal? .During the fight over equal access, the
Marc Stern wrote:
Were there
any interveners? Might
Discovery Institute intervene for purposes of appeal? .During the fight
over equal
access, the Supreme Court held in Bender v. Williamsport ASD,475 US
534 that
a single school board member did not have standing to
The appellate court in the Cobb County disclaimer case, from the news reports, appears to have not read the decision or the transcript from the lower court, at least not with the care it deserved. Questions at oral arguments last week indicated, to some observers (including this one), that lower
Was it a willful bad faith violation, or ignorance and misled? I don't think they were trying to flaunt the constitution so much as they were interpreting it with wishcraft -- crafting the law to fit their wishes. I would not think punitive damages are appropriate for inanity in
Wouldn't individual board members have at least a plausible claim to
legislative immunity? See Bogan v. Scott-Harris, 523 U.S. 44 (1998).
Michael R. Masinter 3305 College Avenue
Professor of LawFort Lauderdale, FL 33314
Nova Southeastern University
In a message dated 12/20/2005 3:14:45 PM Central Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would an award of punitive damages against them have been an appropriate remedy?
Unless the award is against them individually, all you would be doing is taking money from kids who need a good
I don't have a solution for the
problem of lawyers and judges assessing expert testimony. Perhaps this
is a necessary feature of adjudication. Still, we should recognize it
as a problem, at least in my view, and try to limit its role.
Philosophical investigation
may get some issues wrong
The Defendants include the Dover Area School District (hereinafter
DASD) and Dover Area School District Board of Directors (hereinafter the
Board) (collectively Defendants). Defendant DASD is a municipal corporation
governed by a board of directors, which is the Board.
Defendants' actions in
Are indictments for perjiury waiting in the wings?
Jim Maule
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/20/2005 4:12:28 PM
In light of the judge's appraisal of the behavior of the Board
members, do members of the list think that punitive damages might
have been awarded against particular Board members had they
But damages not awarded against the board members in their individual capacities.Fees and costs do not qualify as damages; nominal damages are damages.On Dec 20, 2005, at 6:03 PM, James Maule wrote:"The Defendants include the Dover Area School District (hereinafter"DASD") and Dover Area School
With regard to the judge's commentary, what I find the most disturbing is
thatthis particular judge -- a Bush appointee with pretty firm
"conservative" credentials -- felt it necessary to preemptively defend not just
his decision, but himself, in his opinion. What does that say for the
Of course. I wasn't thinking.
Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX 78705
512-232-1341
512-471-6988 (fax)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Michael MASINTER
Sent: Tue 12/20/2005 10:33 PM
To: Law Religion issues
58 matches
Mail list logo
