Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge copied ACLU in anti-design ruling
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | December 12, 2006 | Art Moore

Posted on 12/12/2006 8:52:13 AM PST by editor-surveyor

© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by ACLU lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute.

One year ago, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones' 139-page ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover declared unconstitutional a school board policy that required students of a ninth-grade biology class in the Dover Area School District to hear a one-minute statement that said evolution is a theory and intelligent design "is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view."

University of Chicago geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert called Jones' ruling a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" while lawyer Ed Darrell said the judge "wrote a masterful decision, a model for law students on how to decide a case based on the evidence presented." Time magazine said the ruling made Jones one of "the world's most influential people" in the category of "scientists and thinkers."

But an analysis by the Discovery Institute, the leading promoter of intelligent design, concludes about 90.9 percent – 5,458 words of his 6,004-word section on intelligent design as science – was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" submitted to Jones nearly a month before his ruling.

"Judge Jones's decision wasn't a masterpiece of scholarship. It was a masterpiece of cut-and-paste," said the Discovery Institute's John West in a phone conference with reporters yesterday.

West is vice president for public policy and legal affairs for the group's Center for Science and Culture, which issued a statement saying, "The finding that most of Judge Jones' analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones' examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design."

(Excerpt)


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: creation; evolutionism; id; idiocy; idjunkscience; whereistheresearchdi; worldnutdaily
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-239 next last
What, evolution supported by leftist lies and plagiarism?

Tell me it isn't so!

1 posted on 12/12/2006 8:52:14 AM PST by editor-surveyor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; betty boop; ...

Earth shaking!


2 posted on 12/12/2006 8:54:38 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

"What, evolution supported by leftist lies and plagiarism?"

Big shocker to me also......


3 posted on 12/12/2006 8:54:50 AM PST by scottdeus12 (Jesus is real, whether you believe in Him or not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Wow.


4 posted on 12/12/2006 8:57:12 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Unlike the judge, the Discovery Institute did their homework.

I wouldn't expect any fallout though...but I hope I'm wrong.


5 posted on 12/12/2006 8:59:19 AM PST by Artemis Webb (All Truth is God's Truth...regardless of the source.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

LOL! Gotta laugh.


6 posted on 12/12/2006 9:00:23 AM PST by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Cut-n-paste by a law clerk-

Hailed as brilliant work by a not-so-brilliant Judge.

LOL!


7 posted on 12/12/2006 9:01:39 AM PST by silverleaf (Fasten your seat belts- it's going to be a BUMPY ride.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

This is nothing unusual. The cases and analysis are what they are, regardless of who wrote them. There are any number of criminal appellate opinions that I am familiar with that are taken verbatim from the prosecution briefs.


8 posted on 12/12/2006 9:02:46 AM PST by mak5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf
Huh! This is no more than Captain Obvious deciding to play lawyer. Judges frequently import the winning side's argument. At the trial level -- which is what this was -- the winning side often writes the order itself. The other side can then object and say, e.g., this is not what the court ruled, etc.

Move along, nothing to see here . . . .

9 posted on 12/12/2006 9:05:48 AM PST by King of Florida (A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
The judge revealed himself to be nothing but a sock puppet. His ruling will be overturned I hope.

And here is the statement the evos went rabid over.

"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
10 posted on 12/12/2006 9:06:01 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Sour grapes. Get better facts next time and maybe you won't lose.


11 posted on 12/12/2006 9:08:11 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mak5

Nice excuse-making there mak.

You'll have lots of company soon though as the anti-creationist Freepers will be showing up for 400 + posts thread.


12 posted on 12/12/2006 9:08:31 AM PST by subterfuge (Today, Tolerance =greatest virtue;Hypocrisy=worst character defect; Discrimination =worst atrocity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
What, evolution intelligent design supported by leftist creationist lies and plagiarism?

Tell me it isn't so!

13 posted on 12/12/2006 9:08:59 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
West is vice president for public policy and legal affairs for the group's Center for Science and Culture, which issued a statement saying, "The finding that most of Judge Jones' analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones' examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design."

Typical Discovery Institute BS.

Both sides submitted their closing briefs. The judge selected those parts that set forth his opinion. This is standard in cases of this type, and the DI folks are dishonest in making a big deal of it. By the way, both closing briefs were posted on the web at the time.

The DI is just upset because their Trojan horse, ID, got pasted.

Here's something else the DI wrote, which somehow leaked out of their control. It sets out their entire strategy: The Wedge Strategy: Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture.

14 posted on 12/12/2006 9:09:12 AM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

May 22, 2006 - Judge Jones reveals his false beliefs (premise for his ruling) about the Anti-Establishment Clause in the Constitution:

"The founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. They possessed a great confidence in an individual's ability to understand the world and its most fundamental laws through the exercise of his or her reason. This core set of beliefs led the founders, who constantly engaged and questioned things, to secure their idea of religious freedom by barring any alliance between church and state." ~U.S. District Judge John E. Jones in his May 2006 commencement address to 500 graduates at his alma mater, Dickinson College.

He needs to click my screen name and get up to speed. :)


15 posted on 12/12/2006 9:10:35 AM PST by Matchett-PI (To have no voice in the Party that always sides with America's enemies is a badge of honor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
"This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."

That quote of yours is so full of errors that it should not be read by anyone, ever.

16 posted on 12/12/2006 9:11:45 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Intelligent Design:


17 posted on 12/12/2006 9:12:46 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mak5
"This is nothing unusual."

We know. LOL!

18 posted on 12/12/2006 9:14:48 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

This just shows there's so little real proof of evolution they have to resort to lies to push it on our kids, all in the name of rejecting God. Sick.


19 posted on 12/12/2006 9:18:40 AM PST by TraditionalistMommy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TraditionalistMommy

The DI is complaining the opinion was cut and pasted. Where is anyone being accused of lying?


20 posted on 12/12/2006 9:29:06 AM PST by gcruse (http://garycruse.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge
Nice excuse-making there mak.

Nope, that's how it works. I've been following SCO v. IBM for quite a while, and I read all of the court documents. I often see the winner of a motion have his words in the order verbatim -- that is when the judge doesn't just ask the winner to write the whole order in the first place. In any case, the judge ipso facto accepts the winning side's arguments, so the judge can reword the winning arguments in his decision, or simply use those convincing arguments verbatim.

The Discovery Institute's lawyers know this, and John West, their VP of legal affairs quoted in this, definitely knows. They're just putting this out to curry public favor among those who know nothing about how the courts work (obviously many, given the posts here) by portraying themselves as the victim of an unscrupulous judge.

Unfortunately, their defamatory spin probably doesn't constitute libel since their claims are technically true.

21 posted on 12/12/2006 9:29:57 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: mak5
This is nothing unusual. The cases and analysis are what they are, regardless of who wrote them. There are any number of criminal appellate opinions that I am familiar with that are taken verbatim from the prosecution briefs.

Exactly.

It should come as no surprise that the Discovery Institute is as dishonest about the law as they are about their own "research."

22 posted on 12/12/2006 9:32:51 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: subterfuge

The point here is not that the judge took the winning lawyers' arguments. It is that he allowed himself to be praised for his great opinion, and took credit for its creation. This judge is an empty suit (robe).


23 posted on 12/12/2006 9:34:27 AM PST by foghornleghorn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: doc30

In that case it is very similar to the theory itself then.


24 posted on 12/12/2006 9:34:44 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"Unfortunately, their defamatory spin probably doesn't constitute libel since their claims are technically true."

Never, ever let a thing like being 'technically true' stand in the way of a good opinion.

25 posted on 12/12/2006 9:34:47 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Nah!


Couldn't be! A shopped-for (liberal) judge copying what he was spoon-fed by the ACLU!

Shocking!

(By the way, just how DID Genesis get the Big Bang and continental drift and planetary development and biology sequences exactly right - before they knew all that scientific stuff?)
26 posted on 12/12/2006 9:37:13 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: foghornleghorn
The point here is not that the judge took the winning lawyers' arguments. It is that he allowed himself to be praised for his great opinion, and took credit for its creation. This judge is an empty suit (robe).

Eggs act lee!(with quotes around the "great")

27 posted on 12/12/2006 9:57:21 AM PST by AndrewC (Duckpond, LLD, JSD (all honorary))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

I imagine that when the judge caught the Creationist people lying under oath and on the stand meant that he wasn't going to copy them (read the transcript if you have not heard of that -- they directly lied about who paid for the books in question).


28 posted on 12/12/2006 10:17:26 AM PST by jim_trent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Robert A. Cook, PE; editor-surveyor
A shopped-for (liberal) judge

You are factually incorrect.

The judge is a Republican, appointed by W. The "shopping" was done by the Discovery Institute, who went looking for a school district foolish enough to provoke a lawsuit. They couldn't get their program in schools on its own merit, so they decided to use the courts.

If you're going to spin, please at least stay within visual distance of the facts.

29 posted on 12/12/2006 10:29:44 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan; antiRepublicrat
"Unfortunately, their defamatory spin probably doesn't constitute libel since their claims are technically true."

Never, ever let a thing like being 'technically true' stand in the way of a good opinion.

The facts of the case are true.

However, pretending that this is somehow unusual or unexpected is either gross ignorance of the law or an outright lie. You may choose which it is, based on how charitable you're feeling today.

But never let a thing like quote-mining get in the way of good spin, Dan. ;)

30 posted on 12/12/2006 10:32:57 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ndt
" Get better facts next time and maybe you won't lose."

You really don't get it? - This case proves that assumption false. The lies won.

31 posted on 12/12/2006 10:37:28 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: doc30

It isn't.


32 posted on 12/12/2006 10:38:21 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: highball

I appreciate the correction.


33 posted on 12/12/2006 10:39:10 AM PST by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only donate monthly, but Hillary's ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
"Both sides submitted their closing briefs. The judge selected those parts that set forth his opinion. This is standard in cases of this type, and the DI folks are dishonest in making a big deal of it. By the way, both closing briefs were posted on the web at the time."

So when a court's bias causes lies to prevail it's ok?

Typical coyoteman BS.

34 posted on 12/12/2006 10:40:47 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
So when a court's bias causes lies to prevail it's ok?

You have demonstrated neither court bias or lies on the part of the winning side.

The judge is a Republican, appointed by W. The only group caught in a lie was the Discovery Institute (it's always the money trail that catches you).

35 posted on 12/12/2006 10:44:09 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: highball; Robert A. Cook, PE
"The judge is a Republican, appointed by W. The "shopping" was done by the Discovery Institute, who went looking for a school district foolish enough to provoke a lawsuit. They couldn't get their program in schools on its own merit, so they decided to use the courts."

You are factually incorrect.

Not surprising of course, but the Discovery Institute had nothing to do with the school district policy. They were on record as opposed to such policies. They were in the case as a 'friend of the court' to keep the facts straight.

Don't bother to read the issues, it would spoil your 100% incorrect record here.

36 posted on 12/12/2006 10:49:11 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Nope, that's how it works

Hmm. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Thanks.

37 posted on 12/12/2006 10:53:50 AM PST by subterfuge (Today, Tolerance =greatest virtue;Hypocrisy=worst character defect; Discrimination =worst atrocity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: foghornleghorn

Excellent point! I sorta missed that...


38 posted on 12/12/2006 10:54:36 AM PST by subterfuge (Today, Tolerance =greatest virtue;Hypocrisy=worst character defect; Discrimination =worst atrocity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

LOL!


39 posted on 12/12/2006 10:54:43 AM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: highball
"The judge is a Republican, appointed by W."

Wow! If you hadn't noticed, W tends to be a rudderless ship on judicial appointments.

Is it the money trail that is catching you? How much are you getting paid to pop up with empty nonsense here?

40 posted on 12/12/2006 10:54:49 AM PST by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
In that case it is very similar to the theory itself then.

Not really. That sticker is typical of the lying manipulations of all creationists. This Discovery Institute arguement about plagarizing plantiff legal briefs is another example. The DI is putting out propaganda red meat for their supporters who know nothing of standard operating procedures in the legal system. It's pure manipulation and you, as well as several others here, have fallen for it.

41 posted on 12/12/2006 10:56:45 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
Never, ever let a thing like being 'technically true' stand in the way of a good opinion.

A fact told without its context can be spun into essentially being a lie. Imagine this headline a while back:

Roosevelt is a Murderer!

Today, a large group of armed Americans were directed by President Roosevelt to cross into the sovereign nation of Germany and kill thousands of German citizens. One of the leaders of his group was even caught saying he personally wanted to kill the democratically elected head of the German government.

That is all technically true, but it constitutes a huge lie unless one knows the context.
42 posted on 12/12/2006 11:00:08 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
You really don't get it? - This case proves that assumption false. The lies won.

As is typical, the creationists were the ones caught lying under oath. The lies were refuted and a good legal opinion was had. As I said to RW, you have been suckered in by Discovery Institute spin. Another example of creationsist manipulations. The way of writing of this opinion is no different that what happens in all the courtrooms across this nation. With actions like this, how can anyone who is a creationsist ever have credibility?

43 posted on 12/12/2006 11:00:49 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: highball
"However, pretending that this is somehow unusual or unexpected is either gross ignorance of the law or an outright lie."

Please show where this happened.

"You may choose which it is, based on how charitable you're feeling today."

False dichotomy but I guess we know how charitable you feel today. ;-)

44 posted on 12/12/2006 11:02:29 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; highball

Highball is right. This is a Jones is a conservative judge. You only believe otherwise because he ruled on the merits of a case in a way you disagree.


45 posted on 12/12/2006 11:02:42 AM PST by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
It comes as no surprise to me that the Discovery Institute and its supporters would now want to cover up their role in the debacle, but you can't hide from the truth. The Discovery Institute gave the Dover school board legal advice when it was writing the curriculum.

You can't run from that.

46 posted on 12/12/2006 11:04:15 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
"This case proves that assumption false."

Bull. They proved their facts and hence the judge used their Findings of Facts. If the other side won then he would have used the other sides Findings of Facts.

As has been pointed out about ten times in 3 different threads, that is how it is done by every judge out there.

Party A states a, b, c.
Party A proves a, b, c.
Judge writes a, b and c in the ruling

OMG look!! a, b and c are there!!!!

Sour Grapes
47 posted on 12/12/2006 11:04:17 AM PST by ndt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
"That is all technically true, but it constitutes a huge lie unless one knows the context."

Well, Roosevelt may have been a murderer, but the text that followed didn't say that. DI didn't claim anything that they didn't prove.

You guys are just upset because the truth is being more widely disseminated than previously and that obviously must be the result of evil creationists.

48 posted on 12/12/2006 11:05:20 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
"However, pretending that this is somehow unusual or unexpected is either gross ignorance of the law or an outright lie."

Please show where this happened.

Sigh. I really wish you'd read the article before posting.

"Judge Jones's decision wasn't a masterpiece of scholarship. It was a masterpiece of cut-and-paste," said the Discovery Institute's John West in a phone conference with reporters yesterday.

West is vice president for public policy and legal affairs for the group's Center for Science and Culture, which issued a statement saying, "The finding that most of Judge Jones' analysis of intelligent design was apparently not the product of his own original deliberative activity seriously undercuts the credibility of Judge Jones' examination of the scientific validity of intelligent design."

What Judge Jones did was standard legal practice, and West ought to know that. If Jones had ruled for the Dover school board, then the opinion would have been constructed out of the Dover lawyers' arguments.

49 posted on 12/12/2006 11:08:31 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: GourmetDan
DI didn't claim anything that they didn't prove.

DI is now claiming that there is something suspect in the judgment. That is a claim that they did not prove.

50 posted on 12/12/2006 11:09:40 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-239 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson