Changes

In his ruling, Judge Jones plagiarized material from [[ACLU]] briefs.<ref name="moore">Moore, Art [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330 ''Judge copied ACLU in anti-intelligent design ruling''] World Net Daily</ref><ref name="west and DeWolf">West, John G. and David K. DeWolf (December 12, 2006) [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186 A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' with Plaintiffs’ Proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"] Discovery Institute.</ref><ref>Luskin, Casey (January 26, 2007) [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_response_to_darwinist_defend.html ''A Response to Darwinist Defenders of Judge Jones' Copying from the ACLU''] Evolution News</ref><ref>Judge Jones even copied a misspelling of Antony Flew [http://darkbuzz.com/2007-11.htm#2007-11-04+01:47:00+226]</ref>  The [[Discovery Institute]] states that Judge Jones followed the ACLU and ignored contrary facts.<ref>Crowther, Robert (December 21, 2005)[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/judge_jones_follows_aclu_ignor.html ''Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts''] Evolution News</ref>

In his ruling, Judge Jones plagiarized material from [[ACLU]] briefs.<ref name="moore">Moore, Art [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330 ''Judge copied ACLU in anti-intelligent design ruling''] World Net Daily</ref><ref name="west and DeWolf">West, John G. and David K. DeWolf (December 12, 2006) [http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1186 A Comparison of Judge Jones’ Opinion in ''Kitzmiller v. Dover'' with Plaintiffs’ Proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law"] Discovery Institute.</ref><ref>Luskin, Casey (January 26, 2007) [http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_response_to_darwinist_defend.html ''A Response to Darwinist Defenders of Judge Jones' Copying from the ACLU''] Evolution News</ref><ref>Judge Jones even copied a misspelling of Antony Flew [http://darkbuzz.com/2007-11.htm#2007-11-04+01:47:00+226]</ref>  The [[Discovery Institute]] states that Judge Jones followed the ACLU and ignored contrary facts.<ref>Crowther, Robert (December 21, 2005)[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/judge_jones_follows_aclu_ignor.html ''Judge Jones Follows ACLU, Ignores Contrary Facts''] Evolution News</ref>

After the trial, Judge Jones ordered the school district to pay over $2 million in legal fees to the ACLU's side. The case was not appealed for political reasons, so it is not known whether the opinion would have survived appeal.

After the trial, Judge Jones ordered the school district to pay over $2 million in legal fees to the ACLU's side. Just prior to Judge Jones' ruling, though, the usually-conservative Dover school district elected eight new members to the executive board, all eight of whom opposed inclusion of ID in science classrooms at the local high school. <ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/21/education/21evolution.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2</ref> Because of this turnover, it was exceedingly unlikely that the decision would be appealed by the Dover Area School District.

Jones later made statements making clear that he knew that he had engaged in [[judicial activism]] in the case.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html</ref>

Jones later made statements making clear that he knew that he had engaged in [[judicial activism]] in the case.<ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html</ref>