We had just about given up hope, but we decided to check one more time. Yippee, we found it! Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist, has done it again.
Casey is one of the few non-fellows among the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute‘s creationist public relations and lobbying operation, the Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids, a/k/a the cdesign proponentsists).
Casey has played his traditional role in the creationists’ war on Kitzmas by posting Five Years Later, Evolutionary Immunology and other Icons of Kitzmiller v. Dover Not Holding Up Well at the Discoveroid blog. Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:
Judge Jones might not realize it, but in a recent article in the York Dispatch he admitted that his ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case amounted to judicial activism.
“Activism”? Judge John E. Jones III followed the evidence and applied the law. His decision (Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District) is a model for other judges to follow. Where’s the activism? Did Jones make up his own facts? Make up his own law? Disregard well-established precedents? Reject well-understood provisions of the Constitution? That’s what judicial activists do. Jones did none of that. What is Casey talking about? Let’s read on:
He [Jones] stated: “The decision seems to be holding up well … No other school district has engaged in this kind of a battle. I hope that’s a product of the decision and perhaps the way that I wrote the decision.”
That’s it? That’s the activism? Then Casey quotes someone we never heard of who says: “”[w]hen judges choose to increase their impact as policymakers, they can be said to engage in activism; choices to limit that impact can be labeled judicial restraint.”
Okay, that’s one guy’s definition. Who cares? It doesn’t have any applicability, because Jones wasn’t a “policymaker” — he decided a case (about the school board’s goofy policy) and his judicial conduct was impeccable. Casey likes that quote anyway, because it’s something he can run with, and he does:
By admitting that he sought to impact the policy decisions of parties outside of the ones in his case, Judge Jones shows his ruling engaged in judicial activism.
That’s really desperate criticism, but then, we’re talking about the Discoveroids and at this stage of the game, desperation is all they have. What’s a judge supposed to think when he’s finished an important case? “Golly, I hope nobody ever pays any attention to my decision.” Is that what Casey expects?
But that’s not all. After that shabby “activism” routine, Casey really loses it:
But is Judge Jones’ decision actually “holding up well”? Not if we judge it by the science.
We can judge the decision by the science, and we do. Jones did just fine. You’ll understand, dear reader, if we skip over Casey’s discussion of what he personally thinks of the science. It’s not worth our time. If you’re interested, click over to the Discoveroid blog and dig in.
That’s all there is to Casey’s Kitzmas rant. Judge Jones is a really bad judge, and the science is all on the creationists’ side. Yeah, okay, Casey.
The good news is that we got what we were hopping for — a Kitzmas rant from the Discoveroids. Thank you, Casey; you’ve played your part in the festivities, and you did it well.
And so, dear reader, let us raise our glasses and sing:
Roll me ooooo-ver,
In the Doooo-ver …
Merry Kitzmas, to one and all!
Copyright © 2010. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.