2,732
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 98:
Line 98: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
My proposed ACLU Establishment Clause revision, as asked
Why don't you just link directly to the category from the main page via [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement|Articles to be improved]]? Would make more sense than pointing at a placeholder article that is in the category for no reason... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Why don't you just link directly to the category from the main page via [[:Category:Articles needing major improvement|Articles to be improved]]? Would make more sense than pointing at a placeholder article that is in the category for no reason... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 11:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
== My proposed ACLU Establishment Clause revision, as asked ==
A example of ACLU litigation regarding the Establishment Clause was ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist.'', 400 F.Supp.2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005)<ref>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision.html</ref> , also known as the [[Intelligent design]] case. The ACLU prevailed in prohibiting teachers from teaching [[Intelligent Design]] to students, and forbade the school board from issuing a warning that evolution was "theory, not fact."<ref>''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area Sch. Dist.,'' 400 F.Supp.2d 707.</ref>
In his opinion, Judge [[John E. Jones III]] noted the case ''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', which had previously invalidated "warning labels" placed on Cobb County textbooks, stating that evolution is "theory, not fact." Jones came to this same conclusion himself, relying on the [[Establishment test]], the [[Lemon test]], and applying the [[reasonable student standard]] that he applied in his analysis of the Dover case itself.<ref>''Kitzmiller,'' 400 F. Supp. 2d at 725 (coming to the conclusion reached in ''Selman'' by the Court's own reasoning), ''compare'' Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 13005 (11th Cir. May 25, 2006) at *pincite needed*.</ref> The Judge uses this reasoning as one step towards his conclusion, and cites ''Selman'' and other Supreme Court cases as backing up his own affirmation of the ''Selman'' holding.<ref>''See Kitzmiller'', 400 F. Supp. 2d at 723-24.</ref>
[[Judge John E. Jones]] has been accused of copying heavily from the ALCU's briefs by the [[Discovery Institute]], an institution that filed ''amicus curiae'' briefs in the case.<ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News</ref> The allegation is a partial truth.<ref>This is true with regards to Judge Jones' statements in the early parts of the opinion manifesting his agreement with the ACLU's briefs, but the legal reasoning of the case - constituting the bulk of the opinion - is all original. ''See generally Kitzmiller'', 400 F.Supp.2d at 707.</ref>The judge also ordered costs for the plaintiff, in accord with [[civil procedure]] protocol, totalling over $2 million.<ref>''See'' 42 U.S.C. s 1988 (describing relief afforded victorious plaintiff of a 1983 action as including attorney fees).</ref>
== References ==
<references/>
----
I've come to these conclusions based on close reading of the case. I deleted the line about preventing appeal - it's not in the opinion - and I removed the line about ''Selman'' being vacated, since it seems to me unnecessary since it's only one of a few cites. Note that none of this is opinion. It's all fact. For example, if you doubt my change to the wording of the Discovery Institute's "90% plagiarized" comment, I suggest you read the whole opinion.
If you have a problem with any of this, feel free to discuss it with me over e-mail (ames@nyu.edu) or on this page, or on my page. I'd rather you edit this as you see fit than toss it all out :-) !--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 00:49, 13 March 2007 (EDT)