Yesterday, the Discovery Institute distributed a press release about how Judge Jones used rather a lot of the plaintiffs’s proposed findings of facts in his decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case. Any number of respondents have pointed out that judges do use proposed findings of fact in decisions, sometimes quite extensively.
The York Dispatch, one of the two regional papers covering the Dover, PA area, has an opinion piece about the DI’s press release.
Note to Seattle: That’s not how it works, folks. At least not in the last 200 years of American jurisprudence. Judge Jones’ credibility remains intact, Discovery Institute’s claims flop.
As ACLU attorney Witold Walczak points out, it’s standard procedure for jurists to cite, in their rulings findings of facts from attorneys involved in cases they are deciding.
P.S. to Seattle. The intelligent design argument lost big time in the Dover Area School District case. Pick your fight somewhere else.
“Intelligent design” is a populist socio-political movement that many communities have found doesn’t suit the populace, once they learn that the DI’s brand of “intelligent design” is actually a narrow religious viewpoint, and not the high-minded connotation most people assign to the phrase “intelligent design” in their ignorance of the actual content the antievolutionists give it.<= get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>> = get_option(\'vc_text_before\') ?> 4539 = get_option(\'vc_human_count_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_preposition\') ?> 1557 = get_option(\'vc_human_viewers_text_many\') ?> = get_option(\'vc_tag\') ?>>