Ed Brayton jumps gun on possible Dover sequel
Ed Brayton wrote an article titled "Dover the Sequel?" about a school board in Virginia that issued a policy statement favoring balance in evolution education. However, the statement made no curricular changes, so it is premature of Ed to suggest that there might be a monkey lawsuit against this school board.
We still don't have a definitive court decision about public-school evolution disclaimers, which are oral or written statements that Darwinism is questionable. There are just the following decisions about evolution disclaimers:
(1) Kitzmiller v. Dover, which as a mere district-court decision would have little enough precedential value even if it were a reasonable decision but which has also been completely discredited, particularly by revelation that the opinion's ID-as-science section was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU;
(2) Selman v. Cobb County, which was vacated and settled out of court; and
(3) Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, a ruling against an evolution disclaimer, which came close to being overturned because it came within single votes of an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court.
If a bill to ban or cap plaintiffs' attorney fee awards in establishment clause lawsuits is enacted, IMO it is likely that many school boards are going to step up to the plate by adding an evolution disclaimer to the curriculum. BTW, I am really amazed that Alabama has state evolution-disclaimer stickers that have not been challenged in court.
.
We still don't have a definitive court decision about public-school evolution disclaimers, which are oral or written statements that Darwinism is questionable. There are just the following decisions about evolution disclaimers:
(1) Kitzmiller v. Dover, which as a mere district-court decision would have little enough precedential value even if it were a reasonable decision but which has also been completely discredited, particularly by revelation that the opinion's ID-as-science section was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU;
(2) Selman v. Cobb County, which was vacated and settled out of court; and
(3) Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, a ruling against an evolution disclaimer, which came close to being overturned because it came within single votes of an en banc (full court) appeals court rehearing and a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court.
If a bill to ban or cap plaintiffs' attorney fee awards in establishment clause lawsuits is enacted, IMO it is likely that many school boards are going to step up to the plate by adding an evolution disclaimer to the curriculum. BTW, I am really amazed that Alabama has state evolution-disclaimer stickers that have not been challenged in court.
.
posted by Larry Fafarman | 6/05/2007 04:24:00 PM
3 Comments:
1. Kitzmiller v. Dover, was a reasonable decision.
> but which has also been completely discredited <
Only in your mind.
> particularly by revelation that the opinion's ID-as-science section was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU <
This would not discredit it. That would be fairly normal policy.
> Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, a ruling against an evolution disclaimer, which came close to being overturned <
Close counts in horseshoes.
There is no reason to believe that the appeals courts would not also been reasonable and therefore upheld the lower court hearing.
ViW wheezed,
>>>>>> but which has also been completely discredited <
Only in your mind. <<<<<<<
And as we have seen, my mind is brilliant.
>>>>>>> particularly by revelation that the opinion's ID-as-science section was virtually entirely ghostwritten by the ACLU <
This would not discredit it. That would be fairly normal policy. <<<<<
Wrong again. One-sided copying is widely frowned upon.
>>>>>> Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, a ruling against an evolution disclaimer, which came close to being overturned <
Close counts in horseshoes. <<<<<<
Tell that to those who fight tooth-and-nail over the appointment of every judge or justice.
>>>>>> There is no reason to believe that the appeals courts would not also been reasonable and therefore upheld the lower court hearing. <<<<<<
As usual, ViW, you are a total ignoramus who has no idea what he is talking about.
There are different reasons for selecting cases for Supreme Court or en banc appeals court review, e.g., to resolve differences between precedents or to settle a question of law. However, when a case is selected for SC or en banc review on the basis that the judges/justices think that the decision was wrong -- and the judges/justices voting for review of Freiler thought that the decision was wrong -- then that decision is in really super-deepshit trouble.
> And as we have seen, my mind is brilliant. <
Sure Larry, and you are also the Emperor of France.
Post a Comment
<< Home