Posted on 01/09/2006 8:26:54 AM PST by PatrickHenry
If there’s anything to be learned from the intelligent design debate, it’s that branding “activist judges” is the hobby of bitter losers.
For those who care about the fight over evolution in biology classrooms, Christmas came five days early when the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ruling was handed down. In his decision, Judge John E. Jones III ruled that not only is the theory of intelligent design religion poorly dressed in science language, teaching it in class is an outright violation of the First Amendment.
The ruling was a concise and devastating demonstration of how law, precedent and evidence can come together to drive complete nonsense out of the courtroom. But if the aftermath of the event proves anything, it proves that nine times out of 10, if someone accuses a judge of being an “activist,” it is because he disagrees with the ruling and wants to make it clear to like-minded followers that they only lost because the liberals are keeping them down. Gratuitous overuse has, in just a few short years, turned the phrase “judicial activism” from a description of an actual problem in the legal system into a catch-all keyword for any ruling that social conservatives dislike.
During the months between the initial suit and the final decision, a high-powered law firm from Chicago volunteered some of its best to represent the plaintiffs pro bono, defenders of evolution and intelligent design mobilized, and few people really cared other than court watchers, biology nerds and a suspicious number of creationist groups. The trial went well for the plaintiffs: Their witnesses and evidence were presented expertly and professionally, and it never hurts when at least two of the witnesses for the defense are caught perjuring themselves in their depositions. Advocates for teaching actual science in school science classes were fairly confident that Jones was going to rule in their favor.
When it came, the ruling was significant enough to earn a slightly wider audience than the aforementioned court watchers, biology nerds and creationists. What drew interest from newcomers was not the minutiae of the trial, but the scope of Jones’ ruling and the scorn for the Dover School Board’s actions that practically radiated off the pages. He ruled both that intelligent design was a religious idea, and that teaching it in a science class was an unconstitutional establishment of religion by the state. He didn’t stop there, however.
“It is ironic,” he wrote, “that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the intelligent design policy.”
Such harsh language might provoke some sympathy for intelligent design advocates, if they hadn’t immediately demonstrated how much they deserved it by responding — not with scientific arguments for intelligent design or legal precedent to contradict Jones’ ruling — but with ridiculous name-calling. The Discovery Institute, the leading center of ID advocacy, referred to Jones as “an activist judge with delusions of grandeur.” Bill O’Reilly also brought out the “A” word on his show. Richard Land, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and noted drama queen, declared him the poster child for “a half-century secularist reign of terror.” The American Family Association, having apparently read a different ruling than the rest of America, insisted that judges were so eager to keep God out of schools that they would throw out even scientific evidence for Him. Funny how so many creationist groups seemed to have missed the memo that intelligent design isn’t supposed to be about God at all.
It was depressingly predictable that the intelligent design crowd would saturate the Internet with cries of judicial activism regardless of the actual legal soundness of the ruling. In only a few years, intellectually lazy political leaders have morphed an honest problem in the judiciary that deserves serious debate into shorthand for social conservatism’s flavor of the week. The phrase has been spread around so much and applied to so many people that it only has meaning within the context of someone’s rant. It is the politico-speak equivalent of “dude.”
Only when one learns that Jones was appointed by George W. Bush and had conservative backers that included the likes of Tom Ridge and Rick Santorum can one appreciate how indiscriminately the term is thrown around. Jones is demonstrably a judicial conservative. In fact, he’s the kind of strict constructionist that social conservatives claim to want on the bench. Their mistake is in assuming that the law and their ideology must necessarily be the same thing.
In the end, no one could defend Jones better than he did himself. He saw the breathless accusations of judicial activism coming a mile away, and refuted them within the text of the ruling. In his conclusion 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 intelligent design, 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 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.”
Jones knew his name would be dragged through the mud and issued the correct ruling anyway. One can only hope that the utter childishness of the intelligent design response will alienate even more sensible people, and that the phrase “judicial activism” will from now on be used only by those who know what they’re talking about. No bets on the latter.
Well if that isn't proof we didn't come from apes I don't know what is.
That's right...what it did was constitutionalize and provide authority for the 1866 Civil Rights act...which enumerated the civil rights it protected...specifically the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1866 Civil Rights Act
But those are positive rights...not natural rights or fundamental rights and they're not the Bill of Rights
In any case, I consider the establishment clause a fundamental liberty; it recognizes my right not to be subjected to a state religion.
Evidently, to some people interpretation is only activism if they personally disagree with it.
Everybody's favorite Dr. Mengele did such experiments with Jews. After all, they weren't supposed to be human anyway. IIRC the experiments were a failure, but that didn't keep him from trying. I doubt Nazi "ethics" had a problem with it.
It seems like a pretty well-reasoned article to me. Quite "Scaliaesque"!
That's right...what it did was constitutionalize and provide authority for the 1866 Civil Rights act...which enumerated the civil rights it protected...specifically the right "to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, to the contrary notwithstanding.
1866 Civil Rights Act
But those are positive rights...not natural rights or fundamental rights and they're not the Bill of Rights
Then why didn't they specifically write the 14th amendment to say that? Isn't that the arguement you used about it not mentioning the Bill of Rights directly?
I am not the one who claimed that a human is an ape. If humans are apes, why would an evolutionist have any qualms about the prospect of breeding with an ape?
If man is simply another animal, why would such a thought be repulsive to you? The only other alternative is that man was, in some way, created differently from the animal world.
How is it, if evolution is true, that man has a moral conscience and a sense of right and wrong? Where did that come from?
####Evidently, to some people interpretation is only activism if they personally disagree with it.####
Why didn't the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause give women the vote?
You are confusing evolution for abiogenesis. Only creationists consider them to be the same.
I also think He was having a little fun with Jay Feely in the Seattle game.
That's about it. Slaughterhouse is maybe the single most egregious piece of judicial activism in the USSC's history. The USSC decided that they didn't like how the 14th amendment had altered the Constitution, so they simply decided to ignore part of it. But a lot of theocratic conservatives love Slaughterhouse, because it allows them to pretend the first amendment binds only Congress and not the states.
Science isn't about what I "believe" or what "feels good" to fundamentalists.
Its about what the preponderance of evidence says.
Do you ever post to any threads other than those relating to evolution? Or is that your only reason for being on FR?
If the thought doesn't repulse you then by all means try it and let us know your results.
How is it, if evolution is true, that man has a moral conscience and a sense of right and wrong? Where did that come from?
From mama and papa.
Yes, of course I do. And if I didn't, what business would it be of yours?
Lower batting average than a stopped clock.
####Then why didn't they specifically write the 14th amendment to say that?####
They did. The provisions of the 1866 Civil Rights Act are what were understood at the time to be "privileges & immunities" issues and due process issues. Never in their wildest dreams did the ratifiers of the 14th Amendment think they were making the 1st Amendment applicable against the states.
Assuming this to be true, then maybe you can tell us just what 'ape' is the ancestor of man? Maybe you can also explain why there are no transitional forms between this particular ape and man? Why are none of them still living?
I'm not an evolutionist, so such a thought is obviously repulsive to me. What's your excuse?
It is my personal opinion that it should have.
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.