Posted on 02/02/2007 8:12:16 PM PST by Mr. Silverback
Judge John Jones once told the Philadelphia Inquirer that he became a judge hoping that someday he would have a chance “to rule in matters of great importance.”
Well, last year he got his chance. He ruled on Kitzmiller v. Dover, holding that you could not teach intelligent design in public schools. But given what’s leaked out about his decision, Judge Jones is not likely to be remembered as “an outstanding thinker,” as Time magazine called him. Instead, we might remember him as the judge who let a litigant write his opinion.
Maybe I am an idealist, but going back to law school, I have always respected judges. I believe they take seriously their oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution and to rule impartially. Sad to say, this judge apparently did not.
Maybe I should not have been surprised because, two months before the case was heard, the judge said in a newspaper interview that he was going to go see Inherit the Wind, the old film about the Scopes trial, hopelessly biased toward the evolutionists’ view. He said he wanted to do it to get a context for hearing the Dover case. I wrote him and explained that it is historically inaccurate; he never replied.
Now it turns out that even as the media was praising Judge Jones for his brilliant insights, the Discovery Institute found that ACLU attorneys had actually written key sections of the ruling. In the section on intelligent design, more than 90 percent “was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU’s proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’,” so says the Discovery Institute.
Thus, as the Discovery Institute notes, the central part of the ruling reflects no original, deliberative activity or independent examination of the record on the judge’s part.
And that’s not all. The problem when you let somebody else write your decision is that they may make a mistake. And you, then, look silly.
For example, Jones misrepresented biochemist Michael Behe; he claimed that Behe said that articles purporting to explain the evolution of the immune system were not good enough. But what Behe actually said was: “It’s not that they aren’t good enough. It’s simply that they are addressed to a different subject.” This came right out of the ACLU’s writings.
Jones also claimed that intelligent design “is not supported by any peer-reviewed . . . publications.” Again, wrong and, again, straight from the ACLU’s brief.
This, it turns out, is not even the first time or maybe the worst of Judge Jones passing off other people’s words as his own. In a commencement address, he “employed direct quotations from the book The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America,” according to World magazine, “without providing citation or indication that he was quoting.”
As World magazine noted, none of what Judge Jones did in the Dover decision amounts to a violation of judicial ethics. But other judges will hardly be impressed, which is a good thing since the press are saying this is a precedent for future cases.
The Old Testament warns judges: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality.” Cutting and pasting from one side’s brief does not say much for impartiality—something for you to point out next time someone throws the Dover decision in your face.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Wrong, Chuck. It is common for judges to use parts of the arguments of the successful litigants in his rulings. After all, it's their arugments he has accepted as having the most weight.
But don't let that stop you from inflaming the uninformed. William Jennings Bryan would be proud.
It is standard practice to invite both sides to submit proposed findings.
The judge traditionally chooses parts from each that he/she agrees with.
Besides, this is old news. The opinion was issued well over a year ago, and the Discovery Institute did its big push on the "ACLU wrote the decision" a month or two ago. There were even FR threads back then. Colson is behind the times.
And what the press is/are saying or is/are not saying is not likely to have any effect on judges.
A nominee for the Biden Award!
Thanks, you beat me to it, and said it much better than I could have.
PLUS, you got it in early, so guys like me, who don't know some of this stuff can learn the whole truth before we get sucked in.
Please comment on post #3. Thanks.
Puhleeze. There's no way even you believe that. Or it could simply be one of those ideas so dumb only an intellectual could believe it.
It's common for judges to borrow ninety percent of their ruling? Without attribution? Despite errors he should have caught if he was paying attention to the actual evidence in the case? These are examples of just another ho-hum day in American jurisprudence?
And it doesn't matter to you that parts of his findings are contrary to the facts presented at trial? Puhleeze. There's no way even you believe that. Or it could simply be one of those ideas so dumb only an intellectual could believe it.
Ping!
Good lord, man, you're even plagiarizing yourself by cutting and pasting from your reply to #3 into your reply to #4. And you're not even a judge! LOL
Sounds like a polite way to say the guy took bribes...
There was a trial, and after oral argument the judge announced from the bench that judgment would be for appellees and that he would not write an opinion. He told counsel for appellees, ‘Prepare the findings and conclusions and judgment.’ They obeyed, submitting 130 findings of fact and one conclusion of law, all of which, we are advised, the District Court adopted verbatim. Those findings, though not the product of the workings of the district judge’s mind, are formally his; they are not to be rejected out-of-hand, and they will stand if supported by evidence.
So, you really think that it's the truth that judges commonly borrow 90% of their ruling without attribution? Do you really think, like gcruse and Coyoteman, that when a judge issues a ruling that contradicts the evidence presented at trial it's no big deal?
Ah, but I gave myself proper attribution!
Are you intellectually impaired? I did not see anywhere anyone said that.
Hmmmm...never thought of it that way.
Perhaps Chuck could name the peer reviewed publications supporting ID submitted as evidence during the Dover Trial.
Perhaps not.
Not in this thread, but he did do so exactly one month ago in this thread. Note especially posts 9, 16 and 20.
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.