Jones talks judicial caution (but not for liberals)

York Daily Record ^ | 4/26/06 | Michelle Starr

[Nextrush]

The judicial branch is no place for politics, Judge John E. Jones III told a crowd Tuesday afternoon at Lutheran Theological Seminary at Gettysburg.

The federal judge from Pottsville ruled in December that Dover's intelligent design policy was unconstitutional......

Jones was among the speakers at a two-day convocation..Though he was asked to speak about the Constitution's Establishment Clause..he instead talked about the broader issue of th epublic blurring the lines between the branches of government......

judges should make decisions based on the law, not based on personal affiliation, he said.

"We must remember that we have a rule of law," he said. "It is not a conservative or a liberal value. It is not a Republican or Democratic value...The rule is rather an American value.

It was after he gave his 139-page opinion against Dover....that some comments-including those made on a Bill O'Reilly show and in a Phyllis Schlafly column-crossed the line...

even though the Rev. Michael Cooper-White, seminary president asked Jones how his faith played a role in Jones' decision, Jones said his faith is personal and the greatest impact was when his pastor, Harold Hand of Trinity Lutheran Church in Pottsville, gave him a hug the day after the ruling was issued.

Hand had told Jones that he was proud. On Tuesday, Hand added, "I was certainly hoping that was the way he was going to rule.".............

[Nextrush]

Well more about Judge Jones here.

His theme song based on the York Daily Rectum hype about him should be "Along Came Jones" by Ray Stevens.

We know his political background, a protege of Tom Ridge, our former "moderate" GOP governor. Jones was Liquor Control Commission chairman in the Ridge administration. No doubt Ridge influenced President Bush's choice of Jones to be a federal judge.

Now we gain insight into his liberal religious background. Jones is active in the mainline liberal Lutheran demomination misleadingly named the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

Jones is entitled to his religious beliefs and his opinions, but he remains wrong in not acknowledging that Hugo Black politicized the judiciary with his false notion of "separation of church and state". That ruling reflected Black's personal and political beliefs and if Jones had ruled against "separation of church and state" in the Dover case, the notion of a non-political judiciary that rules based on the law would have been restored.

Instead, Jones reaffirmed liberal political belief as law in his decision.

[robowombat]

'It was after he gave his 139-page opinion against Dover....that some comments-including those made on a Bill O'Reilly show and in a Phyllis Schlafly column-crossed the line... '

'Crossed the line', who the h*ll does this guy think he is. He's just a federal employee paid by the taxpayer that wears a black robe. In spite of the black robe someone should tell him he is not the Pope and there is no doctrine of judicial infallibility. Jackass.

[IrishBrigade]

Actually, many posters to this Forum will no doubt erect shrines to this individual, given their own strident invective about Dover's humility laden ID "statement", which had the temerity to invade upon 'science's' hallowed turf...btw, JOnes should spend less time at his church in Pottsville, and more at the Yeungling brewery up the hill...he'd have a much more generous outlook on ohter peoples' ideas...

[Chiapet]

'Crossed the line', who the h*ll does this guy think he is.

Here is the Schlafly quote he was referring to:

"Judge John E. Jones III could still be chairman of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board if millions of evangelical Christians had not pulled the lever for George W. Bush in 2000. Yet this federal judge, who owes his position entirely to those voters and the president who appointed him, stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."

She's basically saying that a judge should tailor his opinions to coincide with the opinions of the people who believe that their votes allowed him his position. You think that's ok? Or right?

[Chiapet]

JOnes should spend less time at his church in Pottsville, and more at the Yeungling brewery up the hill...he'd have a much more generous outlook on ohter peoples' ideas

While I agree with the sentiment that beer is a good thing, do you really believe that the duties of a judge involve making sure that everyone's ideas are respected?

[Chiapet]

Let the tarring and feathering of Judge Jones begin! Or continue, as the case may be.

[robowombat]

I think that a federal employee of any sort has supreme gall to state that anything a US citizen says about his or her actions 'crosses the line', i.e. that it is impermissible expression. I have no problem with hizzoner offering a homily about the independence of the judiciary in opposition to Ms. Schlafly's comments. Instead what he is saying is that he is such an important person that certain expressions opposing his actions merit censorship.
I don't care for or agree with the abusive comments of demorats about the President or the Secdef. But I don't believe they should be censored. Attacked strongly yes, censored no.

No expression of displeasure by a citizen towards any of the citizen's servants who staff the federal government should ever be repressed save those which violate criminal laws dealing with uttering threats. There is a clear perception among many higher bureaucrats and others in the federal (and I suppose the state and local governments) that their actions are above reproach and vigorous dissent by the citizenry is a sort of lese majesty. This evil attitude ever merits rebuke. If persons such as hizzoner feel that their tender egos have been abused they should return to what they were doing before taking up a federal appointment. In his case administering liquor stores.

[PatrickHenry]

Interesting, but probably not for the evolution list. (I gotta make these little judgment calls all the time, or I'd be pinging the group ten times a day.)

[Chiapet]

I think that a federal employee of any sort has supreme gall to state that anything a US citizen says about his or her actions 'crosses the line', i.e. that it is impermissible expression. I have no problem with hizzoner offering a homily about the independence of the judiciary in opposition to Ms. Schlafly's comments. Instead what he is saying is that he is such an important person that certain expressions opposing his actions merit censorship.

I don't think he suggested censorship or that the comments were impermissible at all. He just said that the comments 'crossed the line.' Very different things there.

Regardless, what you seem to be suggesting is that there should be a prior restraint on the free speech rights of judges. I think it's interesting that your cure for what you perceive as 'censorship' is more censorship.

[robowombat]

Judges can say whatever they want as everybody else. I am just sensitive to individuals dining out on their position appearing to claim to be more equal than others. I have spent my life around gubberment in one way or another and have a very healthy suspicion of how many, especially in what is amusingly called the criminal justice system, see themselves as a special class above the peasantry which is how they see the rest of us. If there is ever a tyrannical government in the US it will be led by the CJ types and the 'internal security specialists', civilians all not the people from the armed services.

[Ken H]

'It was after he gave his 139-page opinion against Dover....that some comments-including those made on a Bill O'Reilly show and in a Phyllis Schlafly column-crossed the line... '

'Crossed the line', who the h*ll does this guy think he is.

I think the "crossed the line" comment is coming from the columnist, not the judge. At least that's how I read it.

[Chiapet]

I have spent my life around gubberment in one way or another and have a very healthy suspicion of how many, especially in what is amusingly called the criminal justice system, see themselves as a special class above the peasantry which is how they see the rest of us.

Actually, the criminal justice system is limited for the most part to state courts. Jones is a fed. To the extent he takes "criminal" cases, they would be either prisoner civil rights cases or violations of federal statutes.

[robowombat]

Yes Jones does sit on the Federal Bench and it is the federal police agencies such as the FBI, and the US Attorneys offices, and the Federal Bench that these sinister notions are most strongly represented. To many of the members of these organizations either really believe they have the mandate of Heaven to rule the rest of us or they are just totally amoral power worshipers of the worst sort. FBI Supervising Agent Larry Potts at Waco would have fitted in perfectly with the men who ran the Einsatzgruppe.

[puroresu]

Jones had no choice but to rule as he did. As a lower court judge, he had to follow Supreme Court precedent, even though the precedents on this issue are stupid liberal activist rulings. Jones was in the same position as Judge Alito was when he struck down some pro-life legislation. As a lower judge, he had no choice.

I would also agree that Schlafly's rhetoric is misguided. Judges should rule on the Constitution, not politics.

The problem is, for the past fifty years or more, liberal Supreme Court justices have indeed based their rulings on their personal political leanings, not on the Constitution. So we have a ton of unconstitutional precedents on everything ranging from abortion and property rights to free speech (McCain-Feingold) and religious issues.

This may not be Jones' fault, and as I said he had no choice but to rule as he did. But it's clear from his behavior and tenor that the ruling he issued in Dover was the one he politically wanted to render. When he saw that Justices O'Connor & Ginzburg were getting all kinds of favorable write-ups for their public fretting over imaginary right-wing attacks on the (ahem) "independence" of the judiciary, he immediately contacted reporters with the news that he'd received hostile e-mails.

And now this. We learn that he belongs to a liberal denomination which wanted him to rule as he did.

So don't praise Judge Jones. He's just a David Souter in waiting. He's playing to the liberal press and the liberal academic establishment in order to bask in their applause, in a way that a real judge like Alito would find unseemly.

[Chiapet]

And now this. We learn that he belongs to a liberal denomination which wanted him to rule as he did.

So don't praise Judge Jones. He's just a David Souter in waiting. He's playing to the liberal press and the liberal academic establishment in order to bask in their applause, in a way that a real judge like Alito would find unseemly.

Two things.

First, I do give credit to Judge Jones. I read the pleadings that were available online in the Dover case in addition to the trial transcripts. He was presented with an enormous amount of evidence to consider, and after reading his opinion, it is clear that he did an excellent job absorbing the material and applying the rule of law to the facts at hand. So Kudos to him.

Second, I completely, totally, and wholeheartedly disagree with your characterization of his denomination as "liberal" simply because they agree with his ruling. That's just a ridiculous statement.

Oh heck, let's make it three things.

I also give credit to Judge Jones for getting out there and speaking about the role of the judiciary. He was attacked and vilified by the religious right after his opinion was issued. If anyone has the right to get out there and present the facts regarding why he was required by both the law and the evidence to rule as he did, it is certainly him.

[freedumb2003]

iven their own strident invective about Dover's humility laden ID "statement", which had the temerity to invade upon 'science's' hallowed turf

Science is science. Religion is philosphy/mythology/etc. To teach children that they can be intermingled is a major public disservice. Today's children are dumbed down enough by teachers unions, etc. Why do we want to dumb them down further on purpose?

[puroresu]

Judges get attacked and vilified all the time. Can you imagine what Justice Souter's e-mails must look like? But he doesn't go whining to the press. Jones did, once he saw how much good press O'Connor & Ginzburg were getting.

Liberals are great at creating myths. And like a herd of livestock, once one of these myths starts to click, they all fall in line. One of those myths is that conservative opposition to liberal judicial activism is an "attack on the independence of the judiciary". Another is that there's a "Republican war against science". Once one of these fairy tales makes it into the media propaganda field, liberals line up lock-step to pay homage to it. RINOs also come out of the woodwork to agree with the myth, to get patted on the head by the media for being a good "moderate" Republican and not a bad right-wing one.

I supported Judge Alito for the Supreme Court even though he once voted to overturn pro-life legislation. I understand that he had no choice. But if his ruling overturning those laws had been a long, finger-wagging lecture to the legislative body that approved them about the need to protect "women's bodily autonomy" and accusing them of trying to "impose their religious values on others", I might have had a different attitude toward Alito's nomination. Ditto if he had gone out whining to reporters about negative reaction to his ruling (he no doubt received some, as do all judges who render controversial rulings), and joined in the liberal chorus about the "right-wing" threat to judicial "independence".

Jones' denomination's synod has a gay/lesbian task force and is considering sanctioning gay marriage:


http://www.rmnetwork.org/flashnet/fn041007.php

http://wfmz.com/cgi-bin/tt.cgi?action=viewstory&storyid=4346

[puroresu]

My big mistake! I meant to say Justice Scalia when discussing hostile e-mails! :-)

[Chiapet]

I understand that judges are frequently vilified. However, Jones was the topic of not just the hostile emails, but also a fair amount of nasty published articles (like the Schlafly piece discussed above, as well as piece the Discovery Institute). These slash-and-burn pieces were written and published despite the fact, as you have admitted, that Jones could not have ruled in any way but the way he did.

With regard to the finger-wagging, I'll just say that I can hardly blame him. Please read the available transcripts and the available pleadings. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their position, you will clearly see that the Board's actions and testimony were consistently inconsistent. They outright lied on the stand. I don't know how familiar you are with the practice of law, but I can tell you from personal experience that it is ALWAYS a bad idea to try to be cute with the judge. He gave them a fully-earned smack down in response.

And finally, what's with the mind-reading? Do you really presume to know what his motivations are in public speaking? I can speculate (and have) that it is in response to being attacked. However, your positive assertion that it is just to get himself some good press borders on claiming omniscience.

[muir_redwoods]

The judiciary was politicized by Marbury v Madison. If anyone doubts that the history of the courts in this country is a political history consider the politics of the Dred Scott decision, Brown v Bd of Ed and Roe v Wade.

I happen to agree with Jones' decision but to claim that criticism of it is politicizing the courts is ludicrous. My 1st amendment rights include, foremost, my right of political speech. Criticizing the judge or the judiciary is a perfectly legitimate and honorable expression of political speech. In my view they get it wrong at least 40% of the time.