|
In a message dated 11/9/2005 9:45:19 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can understand the political reasons for waiting for Judge Jones' decision. But surely even if the Supreme Court decides in favor of the old school board's decision, that decision cannot require teaching intelligent design or insisting that evolution is just a theory and not a flawless one at that. So why not change the policy now? Presumably, the new board will not appeal the decision if it goes in favor of the defendant. (Is there still a defendant in the case?) But was the election between two slates of candidates, one which promised to abide by Judge Jones' decision whatever it is and on which did not? I am not searching for conspiracies behind large oaks on dimly lit streets,
but what impact would the immediate decision of the board, on their own
judgments about intelligent design vs evolution, to eliminate ID instruction
have on the case, in particular, on the award of attorneys fees? What if
the practice and policy changes and it is not caused by the catalyst of the
litigation, but on a change of the political persuasions of the board?
Jim Henderson
Senior Counsel
ACLJ
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] 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.
