I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Judge Jones' disparaging statements violated ethics codes

Disparaging statements that Judge John E. "Jackass" Jones III made both inside and outside of court violated two codes of judicial ethics, the Code of Conduct for United States Judges from the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Model Code of Judicial Conduct, 2004 Edition of the Center for Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association. The two codes have a lot of similarities and some differences -- in many cases the wording in the two codes is identical.

In the conclusion section of his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion, Jones made disparaging remarks about the Dover school board defendants and Intelligent Design. His "breathtaking inanity" remark was especially disparaging:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy . . .

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when consid ered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Judge Jones' preceding unnecessary disparaging remarks have had a particularly chilling effect nationally on school boards' and legislatures' efforts to deal with the controversy over evolution education in the public schools.

In a Dickinson College commencement speech, Jones said that his Dover decision was based on his notion that the Founders based the establishment clause upon a belief that organized religions are not "true" religions:

. . . .this much is very clear. 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. At bottom then, 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.

Judge Jones' preceding statements in his Dickinson College commencement speech were not only disparaging but were also plagiarized quote mines. His above statement was plagiarized from a book and omitted a key statement about the influence of radical Whig ideology, thus giving more weight to this "true religion" idea than the book gave.

Also, Jones made an abusive remark about having an attorney "have another unhappy day in this court and have his head handed to him":

But I am distressed by the fact that there is an expert report attached to the amicus brief. You know, if I open the gate and I tell him I want an expert report, that’s one thing. So I guess, you know, before we all start a plethora of filings, I’m telling you that to give it some thought, we can talk about it tomorrow, I could accept some argument on it if everybody wants to argue, and I can haul in counsel for the Discovery Institute. They have local counsel, in fact I think it’s Mr. Boyle’s firm who’s local counsel, and we can go through that, have Mr. Boyle have another unhappy day in this court and have his head handed to him, or I can just summarily strike it. I’m not going to take an expert report.

The following provisions of Canon 2 (A) of the ABA's Model Code of Judicial Conduct are especially applicable to Judge Jones' Dickinson College commencement speech (The Code of Conduct for United States Judges has a virtually identifcal provisions) --

A. A judge shall respect and comply with the law and shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

Commentary
:

Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by irresponsible or improper conduct by judges. A judge must avoid all impropriety and appearance of impropriety. A judge must expect to be the subject of constant public scrutiny. A judge must therefore accept restrictions on the judge’s conduct that might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so freely and willingly . . . . .

The prohibition against behaving with impropriety or the appearance of impropriety applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge. Because it is not practicable to list all prohibited acts, the proscription is necessarily cast in general terms that extend to conduct by judges that is harmful although not specifically mentioned in the Code. Actual improprieties under this standard include violations of law, court rules or other specific provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge’s ability to carry out judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality and competence is impaired.

Canon 3 B.(4) of the ABA Model Code says (provisions in the Code of Conduct for US Judges are substantially the same):

(4) A judge shall be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity . . .

Commentary:

The duty to hear all proceedings fairly and with patience is not inconsistent with the duty to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

(5) A judge shall perform judicial duties without bias or prejudice. A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status . . .

CANON 3 (C) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges says,

C. Disqualification.

(1) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to instances in which:

-- and the following form is provided (I took the liberty of filling it in):

NOTE: In September 1985, the Judicial Conference approved a form developed by the Advisory Committee on Codes of Conduct entitled "Notice Concerning Waiver of Judicial Disqualification" and authorized its distribution for consideration and possible adoption by the courts. The form is reprinted below.

NOTICE CONCERNING WAIVER OF JUDICIAL
DISQUALIFICATION



FROM: The Clerk Date: XX / XX / 05

TO: XXXX (Counsel) XXXX (Counsel)
XXXX

RE: ABC v. DEF, Case No. KITZMILLER V. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. XXXXX


Canon 3D of the Code of Conduct provides (with exceptions not pertinent to this case) that when a judge is disqualified in a proceeding because "the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned", the judge may participate in the proceeding if all the parties and lawyers, after notice of the basis for the disqualification, agree in writing to waive the disqualification under a procedure independent of the judge's participation.

Unless a waiver is obtained from all parties and all counsel, Judge JOHN E. JONES III intends to disqualify in this proceeding because of these circumstances:

JUDGE JONES IS PREJUDICED AGAINST ORGANIZED RELIGIONS BECAUSE HE BELIEVES THAT THE FOUNDERS BASED THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE UPON A BELIEF THAT ORGANIZED RELIGIONS ARE NOT "TRUE" RELIGIONS.

If you and your client(s) wish to waive the judge's disqualification, letters to that effect from you and from your client(s) must be sent to me within XX days of the date of this Notice. The letters should not be sent to the judge and copies should not be sent to other counsel. If all parties and all counsel submit such letters, this Notice and all responses will be made part of the record, as required by Canon 3D, and the judge will continue participation in the proceeding. If a waiver is not received from all parties and all counsel, this Notice and any responses will be kept under seal by the clerk and not shown to the judge, nor will the judge be informed of the identity of any party or lawyer who declined to waive the disqualification. If the disqualification is not waived, the case will be reassigned to another judge.

In a previous post, I showed that Judge Jones violated a judicial ethics code by telling a newspaper that his decision would not be affected by the results of the school board election. The statement implied that his decision would not be affected by repeal of the ID policy and hence was improper legal advice to the school board.
.

Labels: ,

34 Comments:

Blogger Phae said...

You're so desperate for anything that will reflect poorly on the judge in the Kitzmiller case... as if that changes the legitimacy of his reasoning!

Rather than launching this endless and continual series of absurdities wherein you try to find procedural or personal problems with him, why don't you address the actual issue for once?

Here's a start: provide a testable proposition given by intelligent design. Just one.

I've asked you dozens of times, and you have always clumsily responded with a similar question instead, asking me about evolution. And of course, when I provide such a proposition (or twelve), such as the second human chromosome or the Lenski experiment, you fall silent to my repetition of my original question.

Are you really such a coward, cringing away from one of the bedrock requirements of science? Don't be so craven, and actually answer the question for once.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:57:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> You're so desperate for anything that will reflect poorly on the judge in the Kitzmiller case... as if that changes the legitimacy of his reasoning! <<<<<<

It definitely changes the legitimacy of his reasoning -- it shows that he was prejudiced from the start. And it wasn't even his own reasoning -- the opinion's ID-as-science section was copied from the ACLU.

>>>>>> Here's a start: provide a testable proposition given by intelligent design. <<<<<<

There are lots of places on the Internet where you can debate ID -- why must you debate it here? And why should I debate it? I am no big fan of ID -- just look at my post label list in the sidebar. There is just one post label for ID (some other topics have multiple labels because I am limited to a maximum of 20 posts per label).

Also, a lot of bloggers rarely participate in the discussions. Go to Panda's Thumb and see how often the name of the article poster appears in the comment threads underneath.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:22:00 PM  
Blogger Phae said...

It definitely changes the legitimacy of his reasoning -- it shows that he was prejudiced from the start. And it wasn't even his own reasoning -- the opinion's ID-as-science section was copied from the ACLU.
I understand your mistaken belief in this church-going Republican judge's bias, since many of those in the rational camp feared it for different reasons at the start of the trial. But my point is that you never manage to come around to the actual meat of the matter - ID as science - because you can't win that fight, so instead you choose an endless series of obsessions with Judge Jones - who is probably very flattered, don't worry.

It is common practice for judges to use the language and reasoning of one or the other of the two parties in a trial, so I'm not sure why you think his use of that paragraph is so terrible.

There are lots of places on the Internet where you can debate ID -- why must you debate it here? And why should I debate it?

Good, just so we're clear that it's not science - since you're tactitly admitting as such when you refuse to even attempt a defense on this occasion, as on all previous.

So the question then becomes: why you want ID taught as science if you yourself don't even think it actually is science? If you're not a "big fan" then why are you so ardently devoted to trying to cram it into science classes?

Also, a lot of bloggers rarely participate in the discussions. Go to Panda's Thumb and see how often the name of the article poster appears in the comment threads underneath.
Sure. But you are not them. You habitually and compulsively answer comments or critiques right up until you start to lose, and even then you can't help but post something smarmy like "don't feed the trolls" or a similar retreat.

It's pretty obvious you're in an indefensible position. You're attacking the case that threw out ID over any farce of a flaw you can invent, but in the next breath you admit you're not a fan of ID and refuse to even try to defend it. Obviously, you're inconsistent, and the reaosn is clear: you can't defend ID, and you're too cowardly to even try.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:47:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.

Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:12:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I see that Larry is being treed more and more recently. Perhaps they have changed his medication?

Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:26:00 PM  
Anonymous Michael said...

lol, phae

Judge Jones was appointed, he was not elected by the people. In most cases except for Republican Bush Sr who appointed one of the most liberal judges to the Supreme Court. Your going to get a more favorable ruling (either conservative or liberal depending upon who appointed) on particular issues than if a Judge is elected.

As far as your debate with ID, Larry doesn't have to debate ID with anyone. The simple fact that evolution has too many problems, one of which was found recently as DNA from Cro-Magnons is the same as modern man. Where is the genetic evolution? And why are Cro-Magnons not listed with modern humans when it was found their DNA is the same? Would the lack of dna evidence really stick in a court of law with an Judge who is objective rather than subjected to a cause? Answer: No

Friday, July 18, 2008 12:31:00 AM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

"why are Cro-Magnons not listed with modern humans when it was found their DNA is the same?"

Cro-Magnons are modern humans. They are species Homo Sapiens, and not even the first. They appeared about 45,000 years ago, whereas HS is 150,000 years old. Cro-Magnons were, however, the first to show modern behavior as well as modern physiology.

Friday, July 18, 2008 1:10:00 AM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

P.S. DNA is not the "same" even between you and your parents, or you and your siblings. You are a unique individual. However, you and I probably have enough DNA similarity with a Neanderthal to have made mating possible.

Friday, July 18, 2008 1:15:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Michael said,
>>>>>> As far as your debate with ID, Larry doesn't have to debate ID with anyone. <<<<<<

Thanks Michael. I don't have the time to get involved in endless debates. I spend a lot of time responding to the comments here and I do a lot of commenting on other blogs and other websites (unfortunately, a lot of that time spent on commenting elsewhere is wasted because of arbitrary censorship). I need some time to write new posts for this blog. And I am not inclined to respond at all to a commenter who says, "you habitually and compulsively answer comments or critiques right up until you start to lose." As for the statement, "even then you can't help but post something smarmy like 'don't feed the trolls' or a similar retreat," I say "don't feed the trolls" because commenters expect me to respond to them even when their comments are absurd -- "don't feed the trolls" is the only response I can make to absurd comments.

Book websites on Amazon.com are especially good places to debate some subjects. All that one needs to do to be able to post book reviews and comments on book reviews on Amazon.com is just to make a one-time book purchase. You can even post your own original book reviews on books that you have not purchased from Amazon.com. And posting original book reviews is like posting original articles on blogs, which is particularly nice if you don't have a blog. Also, there is practically no arbitrary censorship of comments on Amazon.com (abusive comments -- sometimes even mildly abusive comments -- are sometimes censored). There is a lot of discussion of Michael Behe's latest ID book, "The Edge of Evolution". However, none of the books about the Kitzmiller case have had a great amount of discussion on Amazon.com -- for example, the fairly controversial book "The Devil in Dover has been out for about two months but has only 9 customer reviews and very few comments on those reviews.

Friday, July 18, 2008 5:53:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet more sniping about Judge Jones? Well, to save us all from listening to more of your drivel, why not take some legal or procedural action against Jones - or arrange for some like-minded proxy in Pennsylvania to do so?

In other words, put up or shut up.

Friday, July 18, 2008 6:26:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

The following comment is more-or-less on-topic because it is about Judge Jones, so I will answer it.

Phae said,
>>>>>It is common practice for judges to use the language and reasoning of one or the other of the two parties in a trial, <<<<<<

The degree to which Judge Jones did it is not a common practice and is frowned upon by the courts, as Casey Luskin showed in this report. Not surprisingly, Wickedpedia censored a link to this report -- the link was posted in response to criticism of the Discovery Institute report on Judge Jones' one-sided copying.

My problem is not with the copying per se but is with the one-sidedness of the copying. The plaintiffs and the defendants both submitted opening and answering post-trial briefs. The opinion's ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief. Judge Jones showed no evidence that he even looked at the other post-trial briefs. If the defendants' arguments were so bad, all the more reason to present them in order to refute them. If Jones did not want to do any independent thinking about the defendants' arguments, then he could have just copied from the plaintiffs' answering post-trial brief. Judge Jones felt safe in being completely one-sided in his copying because he knew that an appeal was unlikely because of the changeover in the school board. That is one of the things that is so terrible about the opinion. The opinion is a travesty and has no credibility at all.

Friday, July 18, 2008 6:55:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Well, to save us all from listening to more of your drivel, why not take some legal or procedural action against Jones - or arrange for some like-minded proxy in Pennsylvania to do so? <<<<<

OOOH -- looks like I've stepped on some toes here! That's great!

Friday, July 18, 2008 6:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Oops said...

"none of the books about the Kitzmiller case have had a great amount of discussion on Amazon.com -- for example, the fairly controversial book "The Devil in Dover has been out for about two months but has only 9 customer reviews and very few comments on those reviews."

Amazon.com Sales Rank:
#7,864 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)
Popular in these categories:
...
#3 in Books > History > Historical Study > History of Ideas

Friday, July 18, 2008 9:58:00 AM  
Anonymous Martian Buddy said...

Larry wrote: Judge Jones showed no evidence that he even looked at the other post-trial briefs. If the defendants' arguments were so bad, all the more reason to present them in order to refute them. If Jones did not want to do any independent thinking about the defendants' arguments, then he could have just copied from the plaintiffs' answering post-trial brief. Judge Jones felt safe in being completely one-sided in his copying because he knew that an appeal was unlikely because of the changeover in the school board. That is one of the things that is so terrible about the opinion. The opinion is a travesty and has no credibility at all.

Okay, let's look at these briefs that you think the court ignored. We'll start with some examples from the defendants' statement of material fact:

"23. The preliminary statement and the procedural statement were developed to provide a balanced view and not to teach or present religious beliefs."

"25. Teaching Intelligent Design is not part of the ninth-grade biology curriculum and students will not be tested on this subject."

"26. In addition to maintaining its standards-based curriculum focused on teaching and testing students on the theory of evolution, the minor change to DASD's ninth-grade biology curriculum has the purpose of informing students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding the theory of evolution, including the fact that alternative explanations, such as Intelligent Design, are being advanced by scientists."

These three points are addressed at great length, beginning on page 36 of the ruling.

Next, let's look at the "85 scientists" amicus curiae brief:

Section I, entitled "The nature of science is not a question to be decided by the courts," makes the argument that ID is based on a scientific evaluation of empirical evidence, and thus that the judge should not rule on a purely scientific question. This claim is addressed at great length in the "ID-as-science" section of the ruling.

Section II, entitled "Scientific progress depends on an uninhibited search for truth," makes the argument that "the scientific establishment" opposes ID due to their commitment to "the neo-Darwinian paradigm" rather than its (lack of) scientific merits. This claim is likewise addressed in the "ID-as-science" section of the ruling.

Section III, entitled "Ad hominem attacks on scientists should not be the basis for excluding their scientific claims," makes the argument that ID is being unfairly represented as having a religious basis. Again, the "ID-as-science" section of the ruling addresses this claim.

Friday, July 18, 2008 1:24:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

The trolls are stupid and/or ignorant enough to think that Larry wants ID to be taught in science classes. In fact, he has never advocated anything of the sort: but he thinks that the weak points in the so-called "science" of Darwinism should be mentioned along with the strong ones ( at least if I understand him correctly.) And the weak points unfortunately greatly outnumber the strong ones, in my opinion.

Friday, July 18, 2008 3:03:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Martian Buddy said...
>>>>>>Okay, let's look at these briefs that you think the court ignored. We'll start with some examples from the defendants' statement of material fact:

"23. - - -
"25. - - -
"26. - - -

These three points are addressed at great length, beginning on page 36 of the ruling. <<<<<<<

The Discovery Institute's study comparing the opinion and the ACLU brief covered only the ID-as-science section of the opinion, which starts on page 64 of the opinion. Something on page 36 is not part of this section.

>>>>>> Next, let's look at the "85 scientists" amicus curiae brief:

- - - - - -

This claim is addressed at great length in the "ID-as-science" section of the ruling.

- - - - - - -

This claim is likewise addressed in the "ID-as-science" section of the ruling.

- - - - - - -

Again, the "ID-as-science" section of the ruling addresses this claim. <<<<<<<

We are talking here about whether the opinion's ID-as-science section addressed claims in the defendants' brief, not an amicus brief. Anyway, the appearance of any of the defendants' arguments in the opinion's ID-as-science section would not be evidence that Judge Jones ever looked at any post-trial brief other than the one that he copied from. Hardline Darwinist Larry Moran, who certainly has no ax to grind, said,

Any junior clerk could have copied the material in a single afternoon, making some minor changes of wording. This is not a case of picking and choosing from both sides and writing a summary that incorporates a few phrases here and there. It's wholesale copying, the order is the same and entire paragraphs are copied for 34 pages.

You are really grasping at straws in a desperate effort to defend Judge Jones.

Friday, July 18, 2008 4:10:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Jim Sherwood said...

>>>>> The trolls are stupid and/or ignorant enough to think that Larry wants ID to be taught in science classes. In fact, he has never advocated anything of the sort: but he thinks that the weak points in the so-called "science" of Darwinism should be mentioned along with the strong ones ( at least if I understand him correctly.) <<<<<

Well, ID is one of the weaknesses of evolution and I think it is OK to teach ID alongside the strengths of evolution, but I don't think that teaching ID should be required. And I certainly think that it is OK to mention ID. That is one thing that a lot of people don't recognize about the Dover case -- ID was not actually taught but was only mentioned in an evolution disclaimer statement.

Friday, July 18, 2008 4:19:00 PM  
Blogger Jim Sherwood said...

The fact that certain complex biochemical systems are very difficult to ascribe to random mutations and natural selection, or even to any other purely mechanical process, is certainly a weakness in the conventional theory of evolution,Larry. However, that could be brought up without explicitly mentioning the possibility of intelligent involvement. As soon as one mentions any possibility of intelligent involvement, the Darwin-fanatics and the materialists fly into an uproar. I think that might create a difficult situation, from a practical point of view. But I think you're right, if you mean that teachers should have the freedom to discuss ID if they so wish. The Discovery Institute opposed the policy adopted by the Dover school board, incidentally: although the DI is regarded as The Great Satan by the conventional Darwin-worshippers. If a school board required that ID be taught or mentioned, I imagine that could cause a problem.

Friday, July 18, 2008 4:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Martian Buddy said...

Larry said: The Discovery Institute's study comparing the opinion and the ACLU brief covered only the ID-as-science section of the opinion, which starts on page 64 of the opinion. Something on page 36 is not part of this section.

That's the point; you claim that Judge Jones "copied" from one brief and "didn't even read" the others, but the defense brief dealt with more than just the question of whether or not ID is science.

Larry said: We are talking here about whether the opinion's ID-as-science section addressed claims in the defendants' brief, not an amicus brief

...but Larry also said: Judge Jones showed no evidence that he even looked at the other post-trial briefs.

"The other post-trial briefs" would include the amicus briefs.

Friday, July 18, 2008 7:42:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Jim Sherwood said,
>>>>>> However, that could be brought up without explicitly mentioning the possibility of intelligent involvement. As soon as one mentions any possibility of intelligent involvement, the Darwin-fanatics and the materialists fly into an uproar. <<<<<<<

The problem is that the Darwinists spontaneously raise the issue of intelligent involvement without being prompted -- they immediately start asking who the intelligent designer is, what does the designer look like, who made the designer, etc..

>>>>>> The Discovery Institute opposed the policy adopted by the Dover school board, incidentally <<<<<<

I don't think it was a good idea to oppose the Dover school board's policy, because the policy was not to teach ID but was just to mention it in an evolution disclaimer statement and refer the students to some ID books in the library that were not required reading. These court rulings against evolution disclaimers make ID and other criticisms of evolution appear to be taboo, and that's wrong.

Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:59:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Martian Buddy said,
>>>>> That's the point; you claim that Judge Jones "copied" from one brief and "didn't even read" the others, but the defense brief dealt with more than just the question of whether or not ID is science. <<<<<<<

Being two-sided on one issue does not excuse being one-sided on another issue.

>>>>> "The other post-trial briefs" would include the amicus briefs. <<<<<<

Judges are not required to consider amicus briefs. And saying that considering an amicus brief may be substituted for considering a litigant's brief is absurd.

Saturday, July 19, 2008 5:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Martian Buddy said...

Larry said: Being two-sided on one issue does not excuse being one-sided on another issue.

So you're claiming he read all of the defense brief except the parts about ID being science?

Larry said: Judges are not required to consider amicus briefs. And saying that considering an amicus brief may be substituted for considering a litigant's brief is absurd.

I didn't say he was required to consider them; I said they were considered in reaching his decision in addition to the defense brief.

Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:13:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>>> So you're claiming he read all of the defense brief except the parts about ID being science? <<<<<<

Why are you always trying to put words in my mouth? I am not even claiming that he read any of the defendants' opening post-trial brief -- any of that brief's arguments that are included in the opinion might have come from the plaintiffs' answering post-trial brief. Anyway, you are still missing the point: the ID-as-science section was virtually entirely copied from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief. Also, Judge Jones made a big deal about the ID-as-science section of the opinion, saying that he was trying to "prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us" -- he said,

We have now found that both an objective student and an objective adult member of the Dover community would perceive Defendants' conduct to be a strong endorsement of religion pursuant to the endorsement test. Having so concluded, we find it incumbent upon the Court to further address an additional issue raised by Plaintiffs, which is whether ID is science. To be sure, our answer to this question can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis. While answering this question compels us to revisit evidence that is entirely complex, if not obtuse, after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area. Finally, we will offer our conclusion on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case, but also in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.(emphasis added) (pages 63-64 of Kitzmiller opinion)

Also, his statement "To be sure, our answer to this question [of whether ID is science] can likely be predicted based upon the foregoing analysis [an analysis of whether objective observers would perceive the defendants' conduct as an endorsement of religion]" also shows strong prejudice. And his statement that answering the ID-as-science question was "essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred in this case" is false, because under the Lemon Test the finding of endorsement of religion was sufficient support for that holding.

>>>>> Larry said: Judges are not required to consider amicus briefs.

I didn't say he was required to consider them; I said they were considered in reaching his decision in addition to the defense brief. <<<<<<

Irrelevant.

Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So what legal or procedural action are you going to seek against Judge Jones? Or are you too much of a coward to even try?

Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:06:00 AM  
Blogger Phae said...

michael:
As far as your debate with ID, Larry doesn't have to debate ID with anyone. The simple fact that evolution has too many problems,

Please, reread this. Note how you're only trying to attack evolution, not provide support for ID. You are illustrating why ID is not science... it is a "god of the gaps" solution, and its proponents believe that if evolution is wrong, ID MUST be right.

one of which was found recently as DNA from Cro-Magnons is the same as modern man. Where is the genetic evolution? And why are Cro-Magnons not listed with modern humans when it was found their DNA is the same? Would the lack of dna evidence really stick in a court of law with an Judge who is objective rather than subjected to a cause? Answer: No

This is very interesting. So you are claiming that because members of homo sapiens are genetically similar with other homo sapiens, it disproves evolution somehow? I don't quite follow, I am afraid,

Larry:
I am not surprised you can't even try to defend ID.

As for your absurd declamation that "ID wasn't even taught," imagine this:

"The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about the atomic theory of matter and eventually to take a standardized test of which the atomic theory is a part.

Because the atomic theory is a theory, it is still being tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Alchemy is an explanation of the interaction of matter that differs from Demokritus' view. The reference book, Of Lead and Gold is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what alchemical theory actually involves.

As is true with any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the interaction of matter to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments."

See, alchemy isn't being actually taught, so there's no problem in casting specific aspersions on atomic theory, right?

Sunday, July 20, 2008 5:50:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>>> Please, reread this. Note how you're only trying to attack evolution, not provide support for ID. <<<<<<

There is nothing wrong with that. When Thomas Edison was accused of not making progress in his efforts to develop a practical electric light, he answered, "I've made lots of progress -- I now know lots of things that won't work."

>>>>>> its proponents believe that if evolution is wrong, ID MUST be right. <<<<<<

I don't hold that view. For example, I feel that the problems of co-evolution can be a barrier to evolution even if ID is not. In my discussions about co-evolution, I don't generally assume that the co-dependent traits are irreducibly complex (though they can be, which would create an even greater barrier to evolution).

>>>>>> Larry:
I am not surprised you can't even try to defend ID. <<<<<<

Why should I try to discuss anything with someone who thinks that my leaving a discussion means that I have been refuted?

>>>>>> Of Lead and Gold is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what alchemical theory actually involves. <<<<<<<

I could not find any book with that title.

>>>>>> See, alchemy isn't being actually taught, so there's no problem in casting specific aspersions on atomic theory, right? <<<<<<<

There is no constitutional separation of bad science and state, so there is nothing a court could do about it.

Sunday, July 20, 2008 6:55:00 PM  
Blogger Phae said...

>>>>>> Of Lead and Gold is available for students to see if they would like to explore this view in an effort to gain an understanding of what alchemical theory actually involves. <<<<<<<

I could not find any book with that title.


...you are so ADORABLE! I will reply to the rest later, I have to send this discussion to a bunch of people so they can see that reply.

Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry, so comments made AFTER a court case are supposed to disqualify a judge BEFORE the trail begins? Your argument is, well, stupid (as always).

For the record, there is no quote mine. A quote mine is when different passages of a text are cited together to gave a meaning contrary to the meaning in the original context. That does not happen here. Also, the quotes are part of a graduation speech, not part of a published article or essay. As a professor of the humanities, I would not take off for the use of quotes here. In fact, I would say well done.

An example of a quote mine: "The two codes" "were plagiarized quote mines" "from the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts." Note that every word came from your text. Does this represent your view? I'm sure that we agree that it doesn't. That's why it's a quote mine.

Also, judges are allowed to chastise people who appear in court as well as punish or chastise people for bringing frivolous lawsuits to the court's attention. This is what Jones did -- the lawsuit was correct because the behavior was clearly religiously motivated. What other motivation did the board member who called ID "intelligence design" have? She only wanted to get something in the classroom that she knew was religious.

As usual, Larry, you're clueless.

Sunday, July 20, 2008 7:50:00 PM  
Anonymous 'Nonymous said...

"Of Lead and Gold is available ..."

"I could not find any book with that title."

So write it. It would not be any more difficult than the other stuff you write.

Sunday, July 20, 2008 11:23:00 PM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

Anonymous:
>>>>>> Larry, so comments made AFTER a court case are supposed to disqualify a judge BEFORE the trail begins? <<<<<<<

Yes -- because he must have had the same views before the trial as he had afterwards. In fact, he said that he picked up the views while he was a college undergraduate.

>>>>>> For the record, there is no quote mine. <<<<<<<

It is a quote mine -- as I said, Jones omitted the statement about the influence of radical Whig ideology, thus giving more credit to the "true" religion idea than the book gave.

>>>>>> A quote mine is when different passages of a text are cited together to gave a meaning contrary to the meaning in the original context. <<<<<<<

Wrong -- a quote mine can be a quote of a single, continuous passage of text. A quote mine is any quote that misrepresents the source.

>>>>>> Also, the quotes are part of a graduation speech, not part of a published article or essay. <<<<<<

It is still plagiarism. Al Gore got into big trouble for making oral plagiarized statements.

>>>>>> As a professor of the humanities, <<<<<<<

You don't sound very bright for a professor of the humanities.

>>>>>> In fact, I would say well done. <<<<<<

No, very poorly done. His "true religion" remarks:

(1) -- showed extreme prejudice against ID and the defendants.

(2) -- were not based on court precedent and were contrary to court precedent. Especially bad considering that Jones is a big stickler for precedent.

>>>>>> An example of a quote mine: "The two codes" "were plagiarized quote mines" "from the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts." Note that every word came from your text. <<<<<<

What? That does not make any sense at all.

>>>>>> Also, judges are allowed to chastise people who appear in court as well as punish or chastise people for bringing frivolous lawsuits to the court's attention. <<<<<<

Judges are required to treat everyone with respect.

>>>>>>What other motivation did the board member who called ID "intelligence design" have? She only wanted to get something in the classroom that she knew was religious. <<<<<<<

What do you mean, "she knew it was religious"? Who in the hell are you to decide what other people "know"? She may have thought that it was non-religious.

'Nonymous barfed,
>>>>>>"Of Lead and Gold is available ..."

"I could not find any book with that title."


So write it. <<<<<<<

That jackass Phae should write it -- it was his idea.

Monday, July 21, 2008 5:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Larry wrote, "Yes -- because he must have had the same views before the trial as he had afterwards. In fact, he said that he picked up the views while he was a college undergraduate."

But they are the correct views in terms of interpreting the first amendment.

Larry wrote, "A quote mine is any quote that misrepresents the source."

Jones did not misrepresent the source. The question about Whig ideology is not very important.

Larry wrote, "It is still plagiarism"

It is not plagiarism. In an online version of the speech, the source is acknowledged. That means it is not plagiarism.

Larry wrote, "You don't sound very bright for a professor of the humanities."

You wouldn't know. You haven't shown any ability to understand my summary of Foucault's ideas on "being in the true," which others have understand without a problem.

Larry wrote, "(2) -- [Jones's words?] were not based on court precedent and were contrary to court precedent."

There was nothing in his decision contrary to precedent. you, however, have spent numerous posts on how Jones should have circumvented convention and applied rare or irrelevant rulings to justify dismissing a case. If you are going to defend this point, you need more evidence.

I wrote, ""The two codes" "were plagiarized quote mines" "from the Committee on Codes of Conduct of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.""

Larry responded: "What? That does not make any sense at all." The sentence has a subject (the two codes), a verb (were plagiarized) and more; what can't you understand? Then again, reading comprehension has not been your strong suit anywhere on this blog or elsewhere.

Larry wrote, "Judges are required to treat everyone with respect."

But that doesn't mean that they have to be nice to everyone or every lawsuit. They are allowed to declare lawsuits frivolous and tell people that they are very, very bad people or that they have done very, very bad things. Jones did just that.

Larry wrote, "he may have thought that it was non-religious."

How was she supposed to think this? She didn't even know what it was called! She knew nothing about it and was certain that science education was going to be improved? How? Would it make sense for me to approve of the study of "heroic conductivity" in an effort to improve engineering education? By the way, heroic conductivity is when conductivity occurs in ways not explainable by the laws and methods of conductivity analysis currently available in engineering. I can't tell you what it is, but I can tell you that it questions everything you have learned to date about conductivity. It's also proof of an intelligent conductor who guides the conductivity of different objects and elements.

So you finally figured out the joke about Lead and Gold? It only took how many hours/days? Not looking good for defense of your reading comprehension skills.

Monday, July 21, 2008 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.

Monday, July 21, 2008 12:05:00 PM  
Blogger Phae said...

As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.

"Shit, I'm in a corner and losing badly again. To avoid looking like more of an idiot, I better leave."

Monday, July 21, 2008 5:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phae,

His other strategy is to publish a number of new posts so that the old ones vanish from the main screen. Let's see how long it takes for this one to disappear.

Monday, July 21, 2008 6:47:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home