Re: Judge Jones discusses his opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover

From: Pim van Meurs <pimvanmeurs@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 12:06:51 EST

I'd suggest that people read the submissions by plaintiffs and defendants in the Dover case to understand why the Judge had to address these issue the way he did.

David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Ted. The vagueries of email. Sorry I misinterpreted.
  
 Cris -- I'm not sure I would put it exactly that way. In my view, Judge Jones could have reached the same conclusion under the existing establishment clause jurisprudence without the lengthy discourse on "science." I don't think anything in the Aguillard line of cases required that; in fact, once he found that the Dover board's intent was to sneak scientific creationism in under the mantle of ID, I think Judge Jones could have cited Aguillard on motive and been done with it. I do think the Supreme Court's establishment clause jurisprudence is flawed generally, not just in the creationism cases -- I think the Court has understood the establishment clause too broadly and the free exercise clause too narrowly -- but obviously Judge Jones is not in a position to change that.
Received on Tue Feb 28 12:07:19 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 12:07:19 EST