January 17, 2005

Cobb County

At some point soon I'm going to tackle the entire Cobb County School District opinion [pdf] with some in-depth legal analysis, but for now, I'll just say:

1) Yay!

2) Wow. I didn't quite expect this, being that so many other 'meatier' intrusions on evolution are burbling under the legal surface, some even finding air (Dover). Here, the court found that a sticker that didn't even mention religion, much less Intelligent Design, was a violation. How the court got there is quite interesting. In essence, the court considered a wide range of evidence, all of it quite relevant and all within SCOTUS prescribed guidelines, but wide nonetheless.

For instance, the court cited the controversy itself as a likely inference students would draw when reading the sticker. By that logic, nearly any preemptive attempt by the Christian Right inclusive of a negative slant on evolution would be barred by the Establishment Clause. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

But while the Court explicitly stated up front that its decision only has bearing on the sticker issue and the sticker issue alone, similar enough cases are on their way to courts, and by this court's reasoning, they'd all be disposed of in summary judgment. In other words, any attempt to undermine evolution (which presumably comes attached to attendent controversy) would arouse suspicion in a reasonable student it was aimed at, and thus have a religious effect, since we all know where it's coming from. This reasoning has the effect of establishing a much deeper moat for the creationists to crawl though. Scrivener's Error agrees with me:

"[Judge Cooper] took notice of reality beyond the parties' attempts to confine it."

Which is also not a bad thing. Of course, though, this case will be appealed (to the 11th Circuit), whose affirmance would only bind Georgia, Alabama, and Florida (unless, after 11th Circuit affirmance, it was reversed by SCOTUS). And I'm not entirely convinced the 11th Circuit will affirm. My best guess is that another lawyer(s) will take over and argue that the District Court allowed too much evidence in.

Again, I'll explain/defend these points in a subsequent post.

3) The Thomas More Center is becoming a huge player in Dover and is highly critical of the Cobb County Decision. And it would be unsurprising to see them heading the appeal in Cobb County. But their very presence (as a self-described "not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians...") in Dover only emphasizes the fact that this controversy has nothing to do with any internal scientific squabble and everything to do with certain groups of Christians trying to shoehorn creationism into the public schools, any way they can. And this is one reason why the Discovery Institute does not want the Dover lawsuit at this point in time - their ducks are not in a row, and too many vulnerablities exist to allow for a successful suit.

The Thomas More Center is just finding out about vulnerabilities too (from the York Daily Record):

School board members Bill Buckingham, Sheila Harkins and Alan Bonsell and Supt. Richard Nilsen have, under oath, either said they have no memory of making the remarks related to creationism or denied making them.

But some residents and former district officials insist the board members made the statements they later denied making.

What remarks, you ask?

In a school board meeting: "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. Can’t someone take a stand for him?"
In a TV interview: "the book that was presented to me was laced with Darwinism from beginning to end."

Perhaps after reading the District Court Judge Clarence Cooper's analysis inclusive of the leadup to the suit in Cobb County, the Thomas More Center refreshed Buckingham's memory:

"Never said it."

But a taped television interview at the time shows Buckingham, the board’s chief proponent of intelligent design, talking about teaching creationism in science class.

Such delicious irony when a Christian client lies to make its Christian law firm's case easier. I guess lying isn't one of the ten commandments, so they're all on safe ground.

Anyway, my point is simply that the Thomas More Center is becoming *the* player in this controversy, and it seems likely that the Discovery Institute is cringing as they watch these yahoos play damage control with some worst-case-scenario clients.

4) Panda's Thumb has some very astute non-legal analysis on the Cooper opinion. As does, the aforementioned Scrivener's Error (which has legal analysis).

posted by scott pilutik at January 17, 2005 07:01 PM

digg  |  del.icio.us  |  reddit
permalink

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://realitybasedcommunity.net/mt-tb.cgi/34