Posted on 06/05/2006 4:53:41 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
John E. Jones III is using the intelligent-design debate to answer his critics and talk about judicial independence.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III could have taken the safe route and retreated to the privacy of the courthouse after issuing his landmark ruling in December against intelligent design. Most judges are loath to go public about their cases at all, let alone respond to their critics.
But Jones - angered by accusations that he had betrayed the conservative cause with his ruling, and disturbed by the growing number of politically motivated attacks on judges in general - came out from his chambers swinging.
"I didn't check my First Amendment rights at the door when I became a judge," Jones said in a recent interview.
While keeping his normal caseload, Jones has embarked on a low-key crusade to educate the public about the importance of judicial independence. He has been flooded with more invitations than he can accept to speak to organizations and schools about issues that arose from the Dover, Pa., case on intelligent design and other emotionally charged cases.
Edward Madeira, a senior partner with Pepper Hamilton L.L.P., which represented Dover plaintiffs, described Jones as the perfect ambassador for a more visible judiciary.
"God bless him," said Madeira, who serves with Jones on a state panel on judicial independence. "He came out of the case with a real concern about the lack of understanding of the role of the judiciary and has become a person who spends time very effectively talking about it."
So far, Jones has delivered his message on at least 10 occasions, speaking to high schools and colleges, mostly in Pennsylvania. In February, he addressed the national conference of the Anti-Defamation League in Florida.
Jones had anticipated he would be targeted by hard-line conservatives after concluding that teaching intelligent design in public schools as an alternative to evolution was unconstitutional.
But he was surprised by how ignorant some of his critics were, in his view, about the Constitution and the separation of powers among the three branches of government.
Jones said he had no agenda regarding intelligent design but, rather, was taking advantage of the worldwide interest in the case to talk about constitutional issues important to him.
"I've found a message that resonates," he said. "It's a bit of a civics lesson, but it's a point that needs to be made: that judges don't act according to bias or political agenda."
One particularly strident commentary piece by conservative columnist Phyllis Schlafly, published a week after the ruling, really set Jones off.
Schlafly wrote that Jones, a career Republican appointed to the federal bench by President Bush in 2002, wouldn't be a judge if not for the "millions of evangelical Christians" who supported Bush in 2000. His ruling, she wrote, "stuck the knife in the backs of those who brought him to the dance in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District."
"The implication was that I should throw one for the home team," Jones said. "There were people who said during trial they could not accept, and did not anticipate, that a Republican judge appointed by a Republican president could do anything other than rule in the favor of the defendants."
Jones, 50, who is based in Williamsport, Pa., was finishing his second year on the court when he was assigned the Dover case.
Looking beyond that trial now, Jones said he was concerned about the growing number of politically motivated threats against judges, including himself, that demonstrate "a lack of respect and a lack of understanding of what we do."
He rattled off a string of incidents that occurred last year: The murder of a Chicago judge's husband and mother by a disgruntled litigant. The oral attacks - led by congressional Republicans - against a Florida judge who ruled that Terri Schiavo could be removed from her feeding tube. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter's suggestion that U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens should be given "rat poison" for voting to uphold Roe v. Wade. (Coulter later added it was only a joke.)
And an e-mail death threat that Jones received shortly after the Dover ruling caused him to seek U.S. Marshal's Service protection for the first time.
"Judges are really unnerved by this," Jones said. "My wife couldn't walk the dog without a marshal walking beside her in the days after case was decided."
He wants to remind audiences, he said, that the judicial branch was not designed to react to public opinion as the executive and legislative branches were.
"If a poll shows a majority of Americans think we should teach creationism in schools, we should just go with the flow?" he asked. "There's this messy thing called the Constitution we have to deal with."
Since his Dover ruling, Jones has returned to the routine on the federal bench. He stayed the execution of a murderer, sent a sex offender to prison to "ratchet down his libido," and is preparing for a white-collar criminal case that is sure to thrust him back into the national spotlight this fall.
Jones is scheduled to preside over what may be the largest tax-fraud case in U.S. history when Adelphia Communications founder John Rigas and his son Timothy - already convicted in a separate fraud case - appear before him to face charges they evaded $300 million in taxes.
ONLINE EXTRA
Read Judge John E. Jones III's speech to the Anti-Defamation League via http://go.philly.com/jones
|
And yours perhaps.
Still engaged in cooling out the mark behavior, I see.
Sounds like he's got an agenda.
Shoulda come here first. We could teach him about ignorance.
"If a poll shows a majority of Americans think we should teach creationism in schools, we should just go with the flow?" he asked. "There's this messy thing called the Constitution we have to deal with."
If he really wanted to enforce the Constitution, he'd declare the entire public school system unconstitutional. You just can't provide government run education without violating someone's Constitutional rights.
Bingo! It may be true that if you get "your" judge in place you can do anything, but it isn't true that the system should work that way or that we should openly root for such.
Selective outrage, anyone?
This is a man who should be on the Supreme Court!
how long until this, too, gets smoked or frocked?
Judge Jones now knows the true nature of the creationism/ID movement the same way David Horowitz knows the true nature of the lefties. He's seen them in action. He understands them. And he's standing up for the Constitution and the rule of law. He's a great Republican judge.
LOL! Ain't it the truth!
Judicial activism is when a judge disagrees with someone's personal opinions.
Oh, we've got enough judicial independence, all right. Independence from the Constitution, independence from the facts, and independence from the case at hand.
The reason many conservatives want to tear this arrogant clown a new one is not simply the way he ruled in the case, but that as he did so:
a) He asserted the Left's mythical separation of Church and state to abridge free speech; and b) he broke new ground in judicial overreach in presuming to tell the litigants what science is, rather than just ruling on the case and shutting up. It reminded me of Kimba (the white lioness) Wood, sentencing Michael Milken for the crime of symbolizing an era of greed.
Jones is just another country-club RINO craving the strange new respect of the Left by betraying his oath of office. Count on it: He'll publicly endorse a Democrat for President.
IBTFS [In Before the Forum Swap]
Religion is best. That way our science discussions will be under proper ecclesiastical supervision.
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.