Posted on 01/06/2006 8:07:53 AM PST by MRMEAN
The Dover Area School District might learn as early as next week how much it owes in legal fees for its losing court battle over intelligent design.
Those fees will exceed $1 million, said Witold Walczak, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the organizations that represented 11 Dover parents who successfully sued the district to have the intelligent design policy rescinded.
Walczak and another lawyer involved in the case said they were uncertain whether the fees would approach $2 million. He said the total could be known as early as next week or by the end of the month.
A federal judge last month ruled that Dover's policy on intelligent design was religiously motivated and in violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which bars government from forming or endorsing a religion. In his ruling, U.S. Middle District Judge John E. Jones III held the district liable for legal fees.
The Dover policy required that ninth-grade students be told that evolution is "not a fact" and that intelligent design is an alternative explanation to the origin of life. Proponents of intelligent design say that some aspects of the universe and life are so complex that they might be the work of an unspecified intelligent designer.
In related news, the district formally discharged the law firm that represented it in the intelligent design trial and will refer all legal issues on the matter to its solicitor -- who warned the school board more than a year ago against adopting the intelligent design policy.
The solicitor, Stephen Russell, said in an interview that he will recommend that the school board not try to seek reimbursement of legal fees from former board members who advocated adoption of the intelligent design policy.
"I have a problem with board members being sued for taking actions that are later found to be wrong," Russell said. "Nobody would run for office."
Nor should the district try to recover legal fees from the Thomas More Law Center, the Christian law firm that represented the district in the case, Russell said.
The district's insurance carrier probably won't pay anything toward legal fees, in part because the school board last year rebuffed the insurer's offer to provide lawyers to represent the district in the intelligent design case, Russell said. The district instead retained the Thomas More Law Center, which represented the district at no charge.
"I'd be surprised if the insurance company would help the district," Russell said.
The insurer also might be dissuaded from making a payout based on the written warning Russell gave to district Superintendent Richard Nilsen on the subject of intelligent design on Aug. 27, 2004, two months before the school board adopted the policy.
In the e-mail to Nilsen, unveiled during the trial in Harrisburg, Russell said, "It may be very difficult to win the case" because it would be perceived that the intelligent design policy "was initiated for religious reasons."
Russell said yesterday he was pleased that Jones agreed with him but not surprised. He said several school board members "were hell-bent on getting what they wanted."
Russell informed the Thomas More Law Center on Wednesday that its services were no longer needed by the board, which on Tuesday voted to rescind the intelligent design policy and not appeal Jones' ruling.
"We're officially done," said Richard Thompson, president of the law center. "This case cried out for an appeal, and it was developed for an appeal. But basically, there are no options at this point."
Seven school board candidates opposed to the intelligent design policy were swept into office by Dover voters in November, four days after the six-week trial ended. An eighth candidate, also opposed to the policy, was elected this week in a re-election held in one precinct because of an apparent voting-machine malfunction.
After the lawyers who represented parents opposed to the Dover policy tabulate their legal fees, they will present them to Russell. If the two sides can negotiate an agreement, the case will end.
Parents in the district were represented by the ACLU, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and the Pepper Hamilton law firm in Philadelphia. As many as six Pepper Hamilton lawyers -- including one whose hourly rate is $400 -- were in the courtroom during parts of the trial.
If the two sides can't agree on legal fees, the district could take the issue to court, before Jones. If he were to rule against the district, it would be responsible for paying any additional fees incurred by the plaintiffs to address the fee issue in court.
"This is not about skewering the school district," Walczak said. "This is about recovering our fees."
At the ACLU, "We don't charge our clients," Walczak added. "Very few people can afford to fight in court on matters of principle. The fact we are willing to do cases at no cost to our clients is an important guarantee of constitutional rights."
In December 2004, Pepper Hamilton, the ACLU and Americans United offered not to seek legal fees if the district dropped its intelligent design policy. The district refused.
Russell said a budget surplus and shifting of spending priorities could help defray some of the legal fees. He said some people have inquired about making donations to help cover the costs.
BILL SULON: 255-8144 or bsulon@patriot-news.com.
Augustine's Commentary on Genesis Chapter 19 Sec 39
I hate the ACLU, but it was the idiots on the Dover school board, and their even dumber legal advisers that instigated this sure loser case by their actions.
Especially after Dover's legal team discovered that the board members had stated in meetings their desire to bring religious creationism into the classroom, and then started calling it "ID". And yet they didn't settle their sure loser case then and there, insuring even more money going to the ACLU.
This merely demonstrates the stupidity of the ID proponents. Not only is their science BS, but their legal judgment is too.
They've gone a long way to tarnish the conservative movement as stupid. There never was any "up side" to this case, even if they got ID into public schools. They've wasted their political capital when they could have fought abortion, or some other meaningful issue.
The supidity of this case again makes me think that ID is just bait by leftists to sucker stupid conservatives into doing something that we can never win, and will only hurt our other causes.
Good link. Thanks. Augustine would have been a great participant in our threads.
Interesting perspective.
Hard to justify, though. First of all, evolution is not incompatible with Christianity. Unless, of course, you think you know more about Christianity than the Pope.
Second of all, this case was not about "removing" anything. It was about a flagrantly un-Constitutional insertion of one faith to the exclusion of all others.
It'd be like forcing Major League Baseball to have a Seventh Inning Prayer, then when MLB refuses whining "They're trying to take God out of baseball!"
The 14th extends the "rights and immunities", I believe it says, to the states. But if the rights granted in the BOR didn't extend into the states when they were ratified, then where did they apply? The Federal City?
I think the interpretation that the 14th extended the wording "Congress shall make no law" into "no government entity can do x", is wrong.
The judge ruled according to precident, but I think the precident is wrong.
ID and creationism are BS. But I think the current interpretation of the 1st is BS too. The fact that the people who wrote and ratified the first and 14th didn't interpret it to mean what it does today ought to be a hint.
The Bill of Rights originally applied only to Federally enacted laws. After the 14th Amendment, however, the Supreme Court has consistently held that most of the rights found in the Bill of Rights are incorporated by the Due Process clause. (Under the Slaughterhouse cases [1871], there are very few Federal privileges and immunities.)
My humble reading of the First is that it is a specific limitation on what the Congress is allowed to do. I would not interpret it as granting rights to the people, per se. The second amendment is a right of the people, and many other parts of the BOR, but the First is a restriction upon the Congress.
In any event, the addition of the term "separation of church and state" into conlaw that began 50 or so years ago is totally bogus in an "original intent" view. I think it's safe to assume that the political class that went to the trouble of writing and ratifying amendments would have seen fit to enforce them afterward. So the manner in which they were enforced in the years immediately after their ratification should be judged as reflecting the true intent of the writers.
A Constitution that can be interpreted differently than it's writers intended is meaningless. They shouldn't have even bothered to write it down.
I'm glad how this case turned out because I think that evolution is solid and should be taught. But I wish that we would return to the idea that the constitution means what it says, and if we don't like what it says then we should amend it.
Besides, in all this wailing about the 1st and 14th Amendments, don't forget that Jones also found the actions of the Dover school board to be in violation of the Penna state constitution. (There was also a violation of the Georgia constitution in the Cobb County sticker case.)
Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.. Excerpts:
For the reasons that follow, we hold that the ID Policy is unconstitutional pursuant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.Here's what that section of the state's constitution says:
All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.Continuing with Jones' opinion, he says, just before the conclusion:
In discussing the provisions of Art. I, § 3, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained:The principles enunciated in this part of our Constitution reflected a concern for the protection of the religious freedoms of Pennsylvanians long before the first amendment to the United States Constitution was made applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment . . . The protection of rights and freedoms secured by this section of our Constitution, however, does not transcend the protection of the first amendment of the United States Constitution. [omitting citation]Consequently, our discussion of the issues raised under the federal constitution applies with equal vigor to the issues raised by Plaintiffs that are grounded in our state constitution. In light of this Court's prior ruling that the ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the Court likewise concludes that the ID Policy is violative of Plaintiffs' rights under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The decision did follow precedent re. the First, as a good conservative judge should have ruled. That I have a beef with the precedent is another issue entirely.
The Dover school board not only damaged conservative politics, but it also damaged any future attempt to turn around the current restrictive interpretation of the First. Christian conservatives might have had a chance in cases such as crosses on city seals (Los Angeles - City of Angels) if they hadn't shot their wad politically on these idiotic ID cases.
Hey Doc. Most of the primary productivity is done by plankton and Cyanobacteria - IOW by a pond full of .... POND SCUM!
As usual, this thread, like all crevo threads, has turned into a shouting match.
As far as junk science is concerned, I think it happens when a goal is substituted for a genuine hypothesis.
Yep, that's worse.
Note that their debunking did not come from the creationists but from other stem cell workers.
Only because the "breakthrough" was in such a spotlight. How much biofraud falls under the radar. I wonder...
The advocates of "Intelligent Design" who arranged another fat payday for the ACLU via this ill conceived and dishonestly implemented policy, and the even more idiotic decision to defend it, were doubtless fools, and were certainly liars as proved in court, and one (per his own testimony) may even have been a drug addict... But lefties, Commies and God haters? I don't know where you get that.
They don't and didn't charage the parents. They (in their standard operating procedure) petition the court for legal fees and expenses, which the loser (in this case the defendents) will have to pay. It will probably end up being the government, the school district, of Dover that has to pay.
Biofraud and similar frauds need to be pursued vigorously by the scientific community. Mostly in self-defense. Much science is built on previous work.
Agreed. However your observation (IMHO) argues for the strong interpretation of the establishment clause: that it forbids government support to religion in general, except as incidental to a law or policy with a valid and genuine secular purpose -- as opposed to the weaker interpretation: that it only forbids the government from supporting religion preferentially, but allows general support if non-preferential.
The reason for this is that the framers of the Constitution agreed -- unanimously, at least all who ever found occasion to comment on the matter -- that the document (as it stood prior to adoption of the Bill of Rights) granted the federal government no power whatsoever to legislate or make policy on the subject of religion. Whether the results of such policy affected one church or religion particularly or all equally was irrelevant. Religion was simply out of the purview of the national government. It was a matter for the states alone.
Granted that the Anti-Federalists (those who opposed the new Constitution, and a strong federal government of any kind) expressed fears that the new government might dictate matters of religion under the "necessary and proper" powers clause (Art I, Sec 8), but this must be viewed in the context of a general campaign of fear mongering and demagoguery by the Anti-Federalists which involved greatly exaggerating the powers given the new national government by the Constitution.
You had an odd situation regarding the Bill of Rights and its adoption. The Federalists, who argued that the BoR was unnecessary because the government hadn't been granted the powers that were being denied it in the first place, supported the BoR; while the Anti-Federalists, who had argued that a BoR was essential, opposed or obstructed it. (The Anti-Federalists wanted a second Constitutional Convention instead, where their goal would be to greatly weaken the national government. The adoption of a BoR would make this aim politically more difficult to achieve.)
So...
As additional argument, look at the First Amendment's religion clauses:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Notice that the world "religion" is only used once and is shared by the two clauses. Those who argue that the First Amendment only prohibits the government from establishing an official religion, but not from supporting religion non-preferentially, must hold that the same word, in the same sentence, means two entirely different things, since there is universal assent that "religion" for the purpose of the free exercise clause means religion in general, not just a specific religion or denomination.
There's also a caution here regarding construing the Constitution too rigidly based solely on "what it says," as opposed to its actual intent. Notice that the language of the establishment clause is much stronger (or more general, whichever way you look at it) than that of the free exercise clause. Congress is enjoined from legislation "respecting" establishment, that is having anything to do with, or touching upon, the subject. Whereas with respect to free exercise Congress is only enjoined against "prohibiting" it.
Yet no one thinks we should take the "prohibiting" language literally. That is no one thinks that the government is permitted to substantially REGULATE the exercise of religion so long as it stops short of outright "prohibiting" it. And no one thinks or would seriously suggest that there is the slightest need to clarify this point with further amendment.
I think, BTW, that this also supports my previous message. If the authors of the First Amendment believed the Constitution otherwise conferred on the government any powers regarding religion, they never would have used this "prohibiting" language because then it would imply that the national government might regulate religious exercise short of prohibition. It's precisely because the federal government had to power to do anything regarding religion that such semantic details are unimportant.
It's precisely because the federal government hadtono power to do anything regarding religion that such semantic details are unimportant.
200
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.