evolution

How very… Christian:

LAWRENCE, Kan. - A judge who struck down a Dover, Penn., school board’s decision to teach intelligent design in public schools said he was stunned by the reaction, which included death threats and a week of protection from federal marshals.

Pennsylvania U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III told an audience in Lawrence Tuesday that the case illustrated why judges must issue rulings free of political whims or hopes of receiving a favor.

In a 139-page decision last year, Jones ruled that the Dover school board intended to promote religion when it instituted a policy requiring students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. He ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design as an alternative to evolution.

“And if you would have told me when I got on the bench four years ago that I would have death threats in a case like this as opposed to, for example, a crack cocaine case where I mete out a heavy sentence, I would have told you that you were crazy,” he said. “But I did. And that’s a sad statement.”

Jones then says something that I think more people need to see when they consider some of the more politically-motivated rulings of the last few years:

He said much of the criticism showed a lack of understanding about the role of judges, who he said should rule based on the Constitution and legal precedence - not on personal whims or political favors.

Funny how a lot of people who call themselves “federalists” freak out when a judge finds contrary to one of their pet causes. One expects it from the “living constitution” clowns, but having it come from ones who call themselves “conservatives” makes me take every charge of “judicial activism” less seriously.

Judge Jones was at KU this past Tuesday. If someone could point me to a transcript or recording of his talk, I’d appreciate it.

CORRECTION: Link fixed. See comments.

UPDATE: Pharyngulanche. Who’d have ever thought.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 27th, 2006 at 19:51 and is filed under politics, science. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.