Talk:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
From RationalWiki
Contents |
[edit] Intro comments
this might be useful? --jtltalk 18:13, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Re: Judge Jones' supposed bias, see this comment on Dembski's blog "Uncommon Descent":
| “ | This is all about Judge Jones. If it were about the merits of the case we know we’d win. It’s about politics. Look at the Cobb county case. A sticker that did no more than mention a plain fact, that evolution is theory not a fact, was ruled a violation of the establishment clause. Incredible! A local school board saying evolution is a theory is, in some twisted logic that just makes me shudder, a law regarding an establishment of religion. Har har hardy har har. Right. In a pig’s ass (pardon my french). Clinton appointed Judge Clarence Cooper made a ridiculous ruling that was faithful to the left wing overlords that he serves.
Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush’s circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the “Santorum Language” that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn’t going to rule against the wishes of his political allies. Of course the ACLU will appeal. This won’t be over until it gets to the Supreme Court. But now we own that too. | ” |
The commenter, DaveScot, was positively revelling in the prospect of a politically-motivated result in his direction. And note that DaveScot isn't just some random commenter -- he was at the time Dembski's co-blogger. --jtltalk 19:26, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
- Jtl, would you please work that quote into the article? It deserves to be in the Criticism section, thanks for writing it here!-AmesG 00:33, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
- JTL = WIN.-AmesG 07:49, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Need Legal Help
Could someone please help with the Holding part? Someone with legal stuff who's read the case?-AmesG 21:42, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Lies?
The judge accused witnesses of lieing under oath? Did he charge them with perjury? If not, why not? Sounds like another activist judge trying to make laws from the bench (Thou shall not teach anything but evolution). Heart♥Gold tx 22:21, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
- Presumably you are just teasing. In what way are findings that witnesses lied connected with judicial activism? --Horace 22:39, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
- And judges don't charge and prosecute crimes. But yes, the witnesses lied, and it was obvious that they did, and the judge made such a finding of fact. As, you know, judges do. That's an important part of deciding cases, deciding what the facts are. --jtltalk 22:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
- Not sure when it comes to perjury (this may be outside of a judge's authority). The whole case reeks of judicial activism. ID is as everybit as pseudoscientific as evolution. Heart♥Gold tx 00:54, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
- And judges don't charge and prosecute crimes. But yes, the witnesses lied, and it was obvious that they did, and the judge made such a finding of fact. As, you know, judges do. That's an important part of deciding cases, deciding what the facts are. --jtltalk 22:46, 28 May 2007 (CDT)
Read the decision. Want me to send you a PDF?-AmesG 07:08, 29 May 2007 (CDT)
This blog post is interesting, and points to some law review articles which are likely to be interesting as well. --jtltalk 22:14, 6 June 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Writing tips
As a professional writer, I offer a few suggestions.
- Leave out as many non-essential adjectives and adverbs as possible. This strengthens the writing and makes a stronger case. Too many adjectives tend to advocate a non-neutral PoV.
- Leave out unnecessary phrases such as "… in nature". If something is "religious in nature", it's simply "religious".
- Be careful about editorializing. Present your set of facts and avoid inserting an opinion or telling the reader what to think. The reader may resent it and you're lost the struggle to win them over.
- Don't guess what someone else is thinking. Professional writers don't know what's in another person's mind unless they tell us.
I've cleaned up some of these issues in the article.
best regards, --UnicornTapestry 09:31, 9 August 2008 (EDT)
