Casey’s Annual Kitzmas Rant

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.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

12 responses to “Casey’s Annual Kitzmas Rant

  1. “But is Judge Jones’ decision actually “holding up well”? Not if we judge it by the science.”

    Citation, please.

  2. Benjamin Franklin

    It seems that Casey Lustkin definition of an “activist” judge is really one whose decisions Casey Lustkin disagrees with.

  3. Well, first of all both sides asked for a judicial ruling on whether ID was science.

    Both sides. That’s plaintiffs and defendants (the School Board represented by a Christian firm).

    The Discovery Institute including Casey Luskin, John West, Robert Crother, Jay Richards, Stephen Meyer, Richard Sternberg, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Anika Smith, Douglas Axe and, well, everybody at the DI except poor old Michael Behe, did not support the defendants.

    The DI ran like rabbits. Cowards, all.

    For Casey Luskin to complain about the decision at this point is the height of irony because the little gerbil did Absolutely Positively Conclusively NOTHING to help the defendants. Luskin hid in his bunker, shivering like the little scared gerbil he is.

    The DI did NOTHING at Kitzmiller but watch.

    Well, to be fair, they had nothing to contribute so I guess I’m overreacting. Activist judge? No, Judge Jones anticipated this howl of derision and countered it in his ruling! Jones didn’t change law, he upheld law.

    Poor Luskin! He’s probably mad at his own bosses at the DI for coming out in support for Young Earth Creationism as they have blatantly done. Can’t have it both ways, eh Gerb?

  4. Doc Bill says: “The DI did NOTHING at Kitzmiller but watch.”

    It’s probably killing Casey that they didn’t let him handle the case. Wouldn’t that have been a great show?

  5. But is Judge Jones’ decision actually “holding up well”? Not if we judge it by the science.

    The science of, “does it look designed to all of those who already believe that life is designed.” See, the answer to that is “yes.” You’re welcome.

    That evil materialist science with all of its “standards” and pickiness about the meaning of “it looks designed” disagrees, but that’s opposed to ID “science,” and thus doesn’t come into play at the DI.

    Bless Casey, though, he squeaks yet another year. We’d miss it if he didn’t.

  6. The last useful thing that Casey did was to flush a protesting toilet, and run.
    (Apologies to Lawrence Ferlinghetti)

    What a useless tool.

  7. Janice in Toronto

    I sent the DI a Kitzmas card, I hope more of the readers will do the same…

  8. Using Casey’s definition, every decision the Supreme Court renders is activist. After all, with a few exceptions they don’t even bother hearing a case unless it impacts policy decisions outside the ones in the case.

  9. eric says:

    Using Casey’s definition, every decision the Supreme Court renders is activist.

    The whole judicial system is “activist” by Casey’s definition. If you ask your lawyer if you can do X to get out of your lease, he’ll check out the case law and he’ll inform you that doing X isn’t going to fly. The entire compilation of case law is instructive. After the Dover case, other school boards will know that trying to force ID into the science curriculum is unconstitutional. That’s not “activism,” it’s the function of the judiciary.

  10. He writes that “evolutionary immunology” is not holding up so well, although there are no new developments mentioned in his article at all. Only that a former immunologist and current Christian apologist thinks the papers presented five years ago did not prove an evolutionary pathway for the immune system with empirical evidence. Since the papers only described circumstantial evidence for evolution, plausible pathways, etc., it means that the immune system must have been designed. If evolution cannot be proven, step by step, then it’s evidence of design. That’s what they thought five years ago, and that’s why the good Judge ruled the way he did.

    The decision is holding up very well indeed.

  11. Curmudgeon: “That’s it? That’s the activism?”

    It is to those running the “heads I win, tails you lose” scam. The DI asked the judge to rule on whether ID is science, then had the chutzpah to whine that the ruling, not the particular decision that they didn’t like, made him an “activist” judge.

  12. It’s probably killing Casey that they didn’t let him handle the case. Wouldn’t that have been a great show?

    I have some vague recollection that DI might have actually recommended TMLC to the SBOE when the Board contacted them (DI).

    I have a much clearer recollection about why they ran: the DI-affiliated experts insisted on having their own lawyers, separate from the defense., implying their interests and the defense interests were not the same. Both TMLC and the Judge objected. Even before Kitzmiller was decided, this was probably the beginning of the end for ID, because it signaled to every other school board paying attention that the DI was not really interested in helping local governments by testifying so much as using them to advance their own interests.