Changes

{{QuoteBox|[[Discovery Institute]]: Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

{{QuoteBox|[[Discovery Institute]]: Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design. Despite Judge Jones's protestations to the contrary, his attempt to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow turns out to be a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism. [http://www.discovery.org/csc/traipsing/]}}

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact. Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

The [[Discovery Institute]] found that in his decision Jones has copied verbatim from the [[ACLU]]'s proposed findings of fact, though it is not uncommon for a judge to use the winning side's findings of fact. <ref> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=376&page=651#656

</ref>  Casey Luskin, a scholar of [[intelligent design]] at the Discovery Institute, has shown that the decision amounts to judicial activism, although Judge Jones has denied this.<ref name="Activ" />

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling.  On one occasion he stated, "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 considered 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."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

Judge Jones gave many public statements and speeches after his ruling.  On one occasion he stated, "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 considered 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."<ref name="Memo" /><ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>