Changes

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-22_stipulation.pdf</ref>  The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-03-10_order_denying_Rutherford_intervention.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref>  Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court completely and permanently censored the reading of the proposed statement on [[Intelligent Design]],<ref name="Memo" /> and approved an award of over $2 million in legal fees to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-22_stipulation.pdf</ref>  The court also denied an attempt to intervene in the case by parents who wanted the ID statement,<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2005-03-10_order_denying_Rutherford_intervention.pdf</ref> and its final order was based on a stipulation about attorney's fees which also foreclosed any appeal of the ruling.<ref>http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/all_legal/2006-02-24_Judgment.pdf</ref>  Taxpayers in the district paid $1,000,011 of the massive legal fee award to the [[ACLU]] and other plaintiffs' attorneys.<ref name="Note">[http://www.umt.edu/mlr/editors'%20note.pdf ''Montana Law Review'' Editor's Notes]</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (reversed on appeal).</ref>

The court's decision relied heavily on a district court decision from another jurisdiction, quoting from it nearly a dozen times, but that decision was subsequently reversed on appeal.<ref>''Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist.'', 390 F. Supp. 2d 1286 at 1306 (N.D. Ga. 2005), ''vacated on appeal'', 449 F.3d 1320 (11th Cir. 2006).</ref>

== Criticism==

== Criticism==

Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>  

Immediately after the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs, Judge Jones, who had been recommended for the bench by [[liberal]] [[Republican]] [[Pennsylvania]] governor [[Tom Ridge]], was criticized for [[judicial activism]].<ref name="Activ">[http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html Judge Jones Admits the Activist Nature of Kitzmiller Ruling on Lehrer Newshour] (Discovery Institute).</ref>