Amicus Briefs Supporting Evolution Disclaimers

It would be almost impossible to parody.

Is there any possibility that the court will grant credence to those things? Is there a need to get real information to the court via an amicus?

It is interesting that extremist Christian groups seem to want to equate their religious beliefs with a handicap or a "special need."

I still am waiting to here why it isn't sufficient to allow the children of "offended" parents simply to leave the room while facts about evolutionary biology are presented -- just as atheists' children are entitled to leave the room when the Prayer of Allegiance is recited.

This seems like a much more narrowly tailored approach to the special needs of the children of religious parents, as compared to smearing the work of scientists wholesale.

The children whose parents believe that their religious indoctrination program is interfered with by certain biology classes can present the required (i.e., tested) information to their children at home, providing all the disclaimers deemed necessary.

This approach has the benefit of not smearing scientists and also allowing the children of parents who aren't afraid of certain scientific facts to be educated without being interrupted by scripted queries from their special needs classmates regarding Noah's Ark, "who designed the outboard motor?", "Nazi theory," etc.

well, the only problem i see with that is the "etc." part.

exactly where would it stop? every time there is a controversial issue, half the class walks out?

that starts to sound more like support for private schools and vouchers.

I still am waiting to here why it isn't sufficient to allow the children of "offended" parents simply to leave the room while facts about evolutionary biology are presented --- just as atheists' children are entitled to leave the room when the Prayer of Allegiance is recited.

exactly where would it stop? every time there is a controversial issue, half the class walks out

I'm in no mood to coddle people rendered ignorant by their religion. I saw Nightline this week, with a story on "exorcism" and another on snake handlers. I saw a bunch of people who were clearly mentally ill, including a pregnant woman endangering her fetus by waving a venomous rattlesnake in front of her belly. And these people were merely extending to their "logical" limits beliefs that every orthodox Christian holds--that incorporeal spirits can interact with and even control bodies; and that a mental state, faith, can affect the physical world. I do not think we owe such viewpoints any respect, because they have repeatedly failed in the "laboratory" of human observation and experience.

ID creationism takes up precisely these two points: that an immaterial god can somehow interact with physical reality (my favorite phrase for this was that God "glued tails onto bacteria butts"); and that our mental states--faith and ignorance--somehow have an impact on empirical facts. I do not think we need to accord these opinions, which are if not insane, at least demonstrably erroneous, any respect whatever.

The difference between science and faith is, if something "works" one time out of a hundred in religion---prayer, say---it is considered a success. And if a scientific theory has one verified anomaly, it must be revamped or abandoned. That is not a standard that should be promoted to impressionable children.

That's not very amicus, but it was brief.

What absolutely KILLS me is "the disclaimer should be upheld because it is similar to anti-liquor, anti-homosexual, and anti-choice laws."

So not only are gays discriminated against legally, but now the fact that they are is an argument for other idiocy! It's almost a picture-perfect diagram of a slippery slope! After this they can say "requiring kids to pray in school is similar to the biology textbook sticker", then "having separate schools for the 'faith-challenged' is similar to requiring kids to pray in school", and... well, you know where it goes from there, there are trains and showers involved.

Hare Krishnas argue that the disclaimer does not just support Christians, that ruling against it is being hostile towards religion, and that the disclaimer promotes tolerance towards religious people.

What absolutely KILLS me is "the disclaimer should be upheld because it is similar to anti-liquor, anti-homosexual, and anti-choice laws."

White supremacist running for Montana school board McGuire, who calls himself a "European American activist" and rejects the label of white supremacist, says he believes he has more support in the community than many think. And he says he is committed to reforming Bozeman schools. He says the schools promote homosexuality, strip parents of control over their children, ignore white students and promote other cultures at the expense of figures like George Washington and other founding fathers."

The entire evolution of life on earth from its beginning some three billion years ago, and in a more general sense, the evolution of the universe over a much longer period before the appearance of life, is an evolution not only in the sense of yielding more and more highly developed physical forms, but also an evolution in consciousness. It is an evolution in the self-consciousness of the whole. From the beginning, the whole, the creator, the self-created, has followed, has in fact embodied, an upward urge -- an urge toward higher and higher degrees of self-consciousness, toward ever more nearly perfect states of self-realization.

As Bill Donahue put it: "The people on the secularist left say we think you're a threat. You know what? They are right." Very senior Republicans echo the line that there is a filibuster against "people of faith." This isn't just about gays, although we've felt the sting of the movement more acutely than most. It's about science, stem cell research, the teaching of evolution, free access to medical prescriptions, the legality of living wills, abortion rights, censorship of cable and network television, and so on. The Schiavo case woke a lot of people up. I was already an insomniac on these issues. Maybe I'd be more effective a blogger if I pretended that none of this was troubling, or avoided the gay issue and focused on others. But I'm genuinely troubled by all of it, and by what is happening to the conservative tradition.

Wow. That's such a poor argument. Evolution is not hostile towards religion. It is, however, in conflict with certain religious *interpretations*. If the Hare Krishnas' logic was true, then it would also be "hostile to religion" to teach that germs cause disease if some religious people believe that demons are the only cause of disease --- as some of the early Christian leaders (such as Augustine) and some of the more extreme fundamentalists do.

A lot of people in the United States are remain shameless when it comes to bigotry. ... That most of the loudest-mouthed self-proclaimed evangelicals share many of the same goals as these racist jerks should give them pause.

It is interesting that extremist Christian groups seem to want to equate their religious beliefs with a handicap or a "special need."

Could you remind me what evidence your assertion is based on?

The Krishnas argue that the decision striking the placement of the stickers is hostile towards religion, not evolution nor the teaching of evolution. They contend that accomodation, and not merely tolerance, of religion is required, and that this decision failed that requirement for various reasons.

Great White Wonder:

The term "accommodation" (applied to religion) has appeared in Federal law for over 30 years, long before the ADA, and the concept of religious accommodation in American jurisprudence is, of course, much older. The disabled and the religious are not the only ones that the government makes accommodation for, and among the religious, it is not only Christian extremists who are accommodated. (Jews in the military are permitted to wear yarmulkes, etc.)

The difference between accomodating religious dress in government jobs and encouraging ignorance seems obvious. Making kids hear about a theory isn't making them learn it. Hell, if teaching automatically meant learning, our educational problems would be solved. And even if they learn it, they don't have to believe it.

"Making kids hear about a theory isn't making them learn it"

perhaps, but it IS encouraging confusion, both about what science is, and what our government is supposed to represent.

when a minority view is forced upon students in a public school, of what value is that?

perhaps only as a lesson in politics, nothing more.

The difference between accomodating religious dress in government jobs and encouraging ignorance seems obvious.

Making kids hear about a theory isn't making them learn it. Hell, if teaching automatically meant learning, our educational problems would be solved. And even if they learn it, they don't have to believe it.

In fact, I would recommend anyone interested in this issue to read the briefs themselves, as I don't feel (based on the two that I've looked at) that Reed's encapsulation accurately describes the entirely of the arguments. (No offense to Reed intended, at all.)

— Grant Canyon

The term "accommodation" (applied to religion) has appeared in Federal law for over 30 years, long before the ADA, and the concept of religious accommodation in American jurisprudence is, of course, much older.

The disabled and the religious are not the only ones that the government makes accommodation for, and among the religious, it is not only Christian extremists who are accommodated. (Jews in the military are permitted to wear yarmulkes, etc.)

All,

After skimming through the majority of the posted briefs, I think it's appropriate to mention a very important rule of appellate law:

No fact, not introduced at trial, may be considered on appeal.

It occurs to me, that regardless of how well or poorly thought out most of the submitted appellate briefs are, they all suffer from the almost wholesale disregard for the above-stated rule. So, if the appellate judges are doing their respective jobs, then they must ignore every reference to any scientific text, document, journal, etc., that was not offered into evidence during the trial.

This would render most of the offered briefs completely meaningless.

As "position" papers, however, the briefs certainly give you an idea of where the different parties stand on the issues.

I can practically guarantee that the judges considering the merits of this case, will pretty much ignore all of the scientific debate, and concentrate solely on whether the text on the sticker creates an "unnecessary entanglement" between the State and religion. And, I don't really think that the sticker does this -- it's pretty non-committal (and pretty lame).

So, although I find the entire notion of some deity stirring up a mixture of amino acids and dumping it into the atmosphere, absurd, I really think that the scientific community would be better off just letting the public schools teach whatever nonsense they wish to teach.

Because, by standing so solidly against teaching nonsense, you appear to be trying to hide something from the public, which gives your critics lots of useful ammunition -- when in reality, you really have nothing to hide -- and your critics are mostly shooting blanks.

"I really think that the scientific community would be better off just letting the public schools teach whatever nonsense they wish to teach."

As a matter of self-interest, this would be self-defeating, you know.

"It simply is not the Federal government's job to preserve their evidently weak faith or their increasingly inconsistent and unintelligible "values"."

no, but it apparently is in their best self-interests to do so, in order to maintain (or not piss off) their political powerbase.

"by standing so solidly against teaching nonsense, you appear to be trying to hide something from the public"

that's funny.

I thought the public relied on science to tell them "the facts" for most things, should science now abandon this mission in favor of random ideas?

If the public thinks scientists are hiding anything, they are certainly welcome to take a closer look. However, without proper grounding in science to begin with... if we allow "the teaching of nonsense" as acceptable, how on earth will they know what they are looking at?

concentrate solely on whether the text on the sticker creates an "unnecessary entanglement" between the State and religion. And, I don't really think that the sticker does this -- it's pretty non-committal (and pretty lame).

I really think that the scientific community would be better off just letting the public schools teach whatever nonsense they wish to teach.

@socrateaser:

you might want to also check the thoughts shared in this thread:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000949.html

cheers

If ID is not religious than why is former judge Roy Moore arguing that there is no such thing as the separation of church and state in the U.S. constitution? Just wondering....

I was talking about evolutionary theory, not ID.

If ID is not religious than why is former judge Roy Moore arguing that there is no such thing as the separation of church and state in the U.S. constitution? Just wondering . . . .

— JimboK

... and churches do that job just fine.

(1) any legislative act regarding religion is permissible, as long as the law does not actually establish a State religion, to, (2) any legislative act that endorses what would otherwise be a religious idea, is impermissible. As you can see, there is wide room for judicial interpretation in all this.

In fact, the Academies' report endorses research that co-mingles human and animal tissue as vital to ensuring that experimental drugs and new tissue replacement therapies are safe for people. The National Academies -- private, nonprofit agencies chartered by Congress to provide public advice on science and technology -- consist of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council. Doctors have transplanted pig valves into human hearts for years, and scientists have injected human cells into lab animals for even longer. But the biological co-mingling of animal and human is now evolving into even more exotic and unsettling mixes of species, evoking the Greek myth of the monstrous chimera, which was part lion, part goat and part serpent. In the past two years, scientists have created pigs with human blood, fused rabbit eggs with human DNA and injected human stem cells to make paralyzed mice walk. Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep's head?

Particularly worrisome to some scientists are the nightmare scenarios that could arise from the mixing of brain cells: What if a human mind somehow got trapped inside a sheep's head?

Not unless the Supreme Court says there is. And they've already made their decisions. Sorry if fundies don't like those decisions. As they say, tough shit.

— Rev Dr Lenny Flank

Yes, the High Court has definitely made its decisions. However, there are two problems with this position: (1) there are frequently four members of the Court (and usually a "swing" vote) who are ready to overturn precedent on a contentious issue, and (2) in the Cobb County case, the text of the sticker is rather well honed to avoid the "unnecessary entanglement with religion" that has caused prior similar cases to fail to pass constitutional muster.

Alas, there are two problems with THIS: (1) the Aguillard ruling was 7-2, which is awfully lopsided for a Supreme Court decision. And several times since, the Court has had the opportunity to review cases that would reconsider the principles in Aguillard and refused, which indicates pretty surely that they don't feel there is anything to reconsider. I think it not impossible that the Court will actually refuse to consider a case involving ID, on the grounds that ID is nothing but creationism, creationism has already been ruled unconstitutional, end of matter. (2) the text of the sticker may indeed have been "intelligently designed" to evade the Aguillard decision, but alas, it doesn't seem to have helped anyway. I think the Cobb decision was very well supported and I see nothing in it that the Supreme Court might object to.

— Dr Rev Lenny Flank

@socrates:

"Fortunately, if this occurs, the scientific community will likely become even more diligent than it already is, in filling any gaps of evolutionary theory with hard facts, so as to render disclaimer stickers re evolution irrelevant."

look, you obviously don't understand.

1. whatever "gaps" exist are far overblown by those who don't understand the science.

2. evolutionary theory is MORE solid than general relativity. there is MORE evidence to support this theory, and more legitimate tests to attempt to disprove it, than any theory in history.

3. At the current rate of decline in funding for science overall, why on earth would you think it to be a good thing to suggest that more religious belief would somehow "strengthen" science??

your ignorance of the issue is astounding.

Aguillard was a much more obvious case of "creationism" than is Cobb County.

Aguillard supported a summary judgment in the District Court in Louisiana, which was based wholly on the facts determined in McLean. In the Arkansas trial there was no science backing creationism -- and each and every one of the creationists deposed noted that creationism was based in scripture. But following the decision, it becomes clear that all that is necessary for real science to make it into the textbooks is to be science, come up with hypotheses, test them, and publish the results.

One can dispute whether a simple lack of results is firm indication of religious intent, but the reality is that, were there science, there would be no difficulty in getting into the textbooks. Were there science, no legislation would be necessary, not from a school board, not from a state legislature, not from Congress.

Legislation is only necessary to get religious stuff in the science books.

The board in Dover ordered it into the curriculum? What more proof is required? The board in Cobb County ordered the stickers? What more powerful evidence of religious bent could be possible?

The more I think about it, the more I think that perhaps Dickson v. Settle is a more apt precedent -- in that case, the courts held that there is no free speech right to get out of doing one's homework.

ID hasn't done its homework. It has no right to claim a passing grade for work not handed in.

your ignorance of the issue is astounding.

— sir_toejam

Anyway, the point is, that while evolution may be the scientifically correct theory of the development of life on Earth, the Constitution must provide for both those who wish to accept that theory as correct, as well as those who don't.

No it doesn't. As the Supreme Court pointed out in the Epperson case (and reaffirmed in Aguillard): "(T)he First Amendment does not permit the State to require that teaching and learning must be tailored to the principles or prohibitions of any religious sect or dogma . . . . The Establishment Clause, however, 'forbids alike the preference of a religious doctrine or the prohibition of theory which is deemed antagonistic to a particular dogma.' "

— Dr Rev Lenny Flank

Supreme Court dicta may be found to support and/or oppose just about any position

Find one that supports teaching religious doctrine as science.

— Rev Dr Lenny Flank

look - why do you the "wedge document" is named so?

you are falling to the very same argument the IDers themselves use.

er, add "think" after "you"

But, it is not clear to me that the language of the Cobb County sticker is a naked attempt to teach religious indoctrination

However, reasonable people could read the sticker and infer only that its purpose is to suggest more critical examination of the questions surrounding evolutionary theory --- whatever those questions may be.

But why single out "evolution" for this. Why isn't anyone pressing to have stickers urging "more critical examination" of the germ theory of disease, or global warming, or plate tectonics, or any other area of science? Or heck, why doesn't it urge "critical examination" of something that would actually be USEFUL to critically examine, like political campaigns or advertising commercials? If singling out "evolution" for this "critical examination" is NOT simply caving in to the desire of fundamentalist religious nuts who have always opposed evolution, then why IS evolution alone being singled out?

— Dr Rev Lenny Flank

"The majority of the U.S. people do not accept Evolution as truth. Instead, the average person believes that 2,000 years ago, an uncharacteristically white looking Hebrew gentleman, with really long, straight hair, routinely defied the most fundamental laws of physics on a daily basis, apparently by application of will alone."

not true. check the gallup poll results for the last 20 years. the number is significant, but not a majority.

moreover, the people pushing AGAINST evolutionary theory (YEC's) are far in the minority. they just scream louder.

"If anyone needs proof of this assertion, just read the box office receipt numbers for Mel Gibson's recent movie, "The Passion of the Christ.""

lol. that's some "proof" alrighty. has NOTHING to do with people wanting to see a controversial movie, or folks who simply like to see gore ont the screen.

"The jury's still out on Evolution." --- U.S. President George W. Bush

what a silly soundbite. that boy has no clue what he is talking about half the time. Although, his own scientific advisor accepts evolutionary theory.

your "reverse wedge" argument isn't even worthy of a chuckle.

"The majority of the U.S. people do not accept Evolution as truth. Instead, the average person believes that 2,000 years ago, an uncharacteristically white looking Hebrew gentleman, with really long, straight hair, routinely defied the most fundamental laws of physics on a daily basis, apparently by application of will alone." not true. check the gallup poll results for the last 20 years. the number is significant, but not a majority. moreover, the people pushing AGAINST evolutionary theory (YEC's) are far in the minority. they just scream louder.

— sir_toejam

one, i said your "reverse wedge" argument was silly.

two, the numbers you put up support what i said:

"ALMOST half of Americans believe God created humans 10,000 years ago"

that's not a majority, tho it is significant, and you would also find that number being less when you include.. ". A third of Americans are biblical literalists "

so there isn't a majority now, is there.

what, did you think i mentioned the poll because i hadn't read it?

you're being silly. make some sense in your next post, as i see no reason to continue as it is now.

The majority of the U.S. people do not accept Evolution as truth.

Only about a third of Americans believe that Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a scientific theory that has been well supported by the evidence, while just as many say that it is just one of many theories and has not been supported by the evidence. The rest say they don't know enough to say. Forty-five percent of Americans also believe that God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. A third of Americans are biblical literalists who believe that the Bible is the actual word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word."

Those of us who teach science to nonscientists recognize that the problem isn't only about evolution. Most people believe, e.g., that Wile E. Coyote goes off the cliff in a straight line until he stops to notice that he is in thin air, then falls straight down, and when pressed, also believe that Earth is stationary and the Sun revolves around it.

That doesn't stop them from supporting the Space Program. The big problem with evolution is that it has religious overtones to some people, and that they fear that if any little bit of their belief system is overturned, then all of it will crash. Ken Miller has a story in his book where he got a creationist to admit he was wrong, only to find him repeating the same stuff next chance. His conclusion: he reckoned the cost of logic was too high, and that all his beliefs about morality, etc., would be lost if he didn't believe in a literal Genesis. That's why the religious component of the pro-science movement is so important - the seats in the pew won't believe that an atheist is right about anything, because they fear having to admit that s/he is right about other things.

"We are, in effect, a nation of morons."

damn straight! makes me want to go have a pint right now (or several). then at least i'd have an excuse.

where is the PT pub?

The Panda's Thumb is the virtual pub of the University of Ediacara.

But why single out "evolution" for this. Why isn't anyomne pressing to have stickers urging "more critical examination" of the germ theory of disease, or global warming, or plate tectonics, or any other area of science? Or heck, why doesn't it urge "critical examination" of something that would actually be USEFUL to critically examine, like political campaigns or advertising commercials?

Socrateaser, your vote-counting seems accurate to me. I certainly agree that Cobb would be a much closer case than Aguillard, and I would not be surprised if the Court, having taken the case, allowed the stickers. I would be surprised, though, if the Court took the case in the first place.

Don't you think that there would need to be either a circuit split or a notably objectionable appellate ruling before the case came up for review?

you need to fight the argument ... as if you are still the persecuted minority

Socrateaser, your vote-counting seems accurate to me. I certainly agree that Cobb would be a much closer case than Aguillard, and I would not be surprised if the Court, having taken the case, allowed the stickers. I would be surprised, though, if the Court took the case in the first place. Don't you think that there would need to be either a circuit split or a notably objectionable appellate ruling before the case came up for review?

— Colin

Correction to post #27716: The Kansas School Board's stated intent to "pray" over the pro-evolution witness list, apparently occured prior to an article appearing in the "Lawrence Journal-World" on 4/20/05. I didn't notice this article until today, and I neglected to look at the date prior to posting my thoughts.

Regardless, my analysis remains the same.

Anyway, the Board's prayer-related statement ... radically changes the legal character of the Kansas School Board hearings.

I may be behind the curve on the timeline of events, but when I say that the legal character is changed by such a statement made by the school board members, of their intent to pray over the witness list, I believe that is correct. The statement can be inferred as an a legal admission, i.e., a statement by a party against his/her interest, that will be presumed to be true at trial. And it is reasonable to infer that if two of the three board members are intent on praying over the witness list, that the school board is prejudiced in favor of a school curriculum favoring a religious view of creation in the science classroom.

This makes the outcome of a future Kansas case to strike down a decision by the Board to teach the creationist/ID viewpoint a practical certainty. The debate will not matter. Legal precedent will force a court to strike down the Board's findings as predominated by a religious motivation, because the Board has inferred its religious motivation on the public record.

Anyway, I apologize if my comments are old news to you. Hopefully, someone will find them useful.

Anyway, the Board's prayer-related statement demonstrates substantial evidence of a religious agenda in the Board's promotion of intelligent design as part of public school curriculum, and radically changes the legal character of the Kansas School Board hearings. In my opinion, this is a legal blunder by the Board of significant proportion (i.e., they've just blown their entire court case, based on existing precedent).

"I think perhaps the pro-evolution side should consider bringing in a voodoo priest and then ask the School Board members for some hair and nail clippings in return for the advance witness list! "

now THAT's something i can get behind. the imagery alone would be worth it!

And it is reasonable to infer that if two of the three board members are intent on praying over the witness list, that the school board is prejudiced in favor of a school curriculum favoring a religious view of creation in the science classroom.

This makes the outcome of a future Kansas case to strike down a decision by the Board to teach the creationist/ID viewpoint a practical certainty.

THAT is the single biggest flaw in the entire Wedge strategy ---- it requires religious nuts to remain utterly silent, indefinitely, on the one topic that they care about more than any other, lest they give the whole game away.

That's quite an inference! Can your agile legal mind not imagine any other reasonable inference? I would like to hear you articulate the argument, socrateaser. Actually, there's no need to do that. The prejudice of the school board was fairly obvious before this prayer "admission" which is why the "admission" does not "radically change" anything.

— Great White Wonder

soc:

what do you think of lenny's proposal to sue districts that don't comply with state science standards:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000978.html#c27810

what do you think of lenny's proposal to sue districts that don't comply with state science standards...

— Sir_toejam

You need to take the edge off of the battleground, so that the scientific community can spend its resources on science rather than constantly patching the latest tire slashing by the Discovery Institute.

1) it's very expensive, unless you have pro bono attorneys for every jurisdiction in which you file suit.

The only thing that WILL end it, is to destroy the IDers as an effective political movement.

A majority of Americans do not believe it was worth going to war in Iraq, a national poll reported Tuesday. Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults. That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not. It's also the highest percentage of respondents who have expressed those feelings and triple the percentage of Americans who said that it was not worth the cost shortly after the war began about two years ago.

One simple way to accomplish that is to discredit their leadership and expose them as liars, hucksters, fakes, hypocrites and/or unreasonable extremists.

@GWW:
"When's the last time anyone paid attention to anything that Uri Geller said? Or Jimmy Swaggart?"

well, i'll tell ya, if nobody shows up to the creation "megaconference" in July,
I'll feel safe that these idiots have been sufficiently marginalized.

when the leader of the house stops spouting: "the dems are anti-faith!"

I'll feel safe that these idiots have been sufficiently marginalized.

when the president of the US stops mangling science in favor of his personal beliefs

I'll feel safe that these idiots have been sufficiently marginalized.

until then... seems to me there are still WAY too many people listening to the likes of Fallwell (9/11 is god punishing us for our sins) or "swaggeringt" or any of these other idiots intent on fubaring science as we know it.

as to the legal strategy; Lenny, haven't you noticed the deliberate attempts to weaken the judiciary by the right lately?

the more court cases you win, the more they will simply attempt to change the rules. first it will be the reinstallation of anti-abortion laws, then it will be forced creationism instruction in the schools.

How can we shore up the judiciary itself against such specious attacks? It's like these folks have completely forgotten why we have a constitution.

OTOH, it still would feel good to kick some ass, and at least have something to show for it, at least until the judges are replaced with IDiots.

give me a bat, Lenny. Let's crack some heads!

one more thing...

when i said:

"the more court cases you win, the more they will simply attempt to change the rules. first it will be the reinstallation of anti-abortion laws, then it will be forced creationism instruction in the schools."

i meant to also add:

Not constutional you say? i guess that would depend on which judges you install to intrepret the rulebook.

why do you think there is an UNPRECEDENTED move by the right to abolish fillibusters in the Senate??

as to the legal strategy; Lenny, haven't you noticed the deliberate attempts to weaken the judiciary by the right lately? the more court cases you win, the more they will simply attempt to change the rules. first it will be the reinstallation of anti-abortion laws, then it will be forced creationism instruction in the schools. How can we shore up the judiciary itself against such specious attacks? It's like these folks have completely forgotten why we have a constitution.

Indeed. i am beginning to wonder if we aren't very close to that.

you might think Kansas is important. However, much more important than that is what happens in the Senate. If the apparent showdown over judicial nominees ends up with the nuking of the filibuster after 200 years of acceptance, I think the end of the republic is most certainly near.

John Stuart Mill warned of the tryanny of the majority. if the filibuster is nuked, you will find out why he made the warning to begin with.

When's the last time anyone paid attention to anything that Uri Geller said? Or Jimmy Swaggart?

...it is a fight between a tiny loudmouthed group of ayatollah-wanna-be's and . . . well . . . everyone else...The only thing that WILL end it, is to destroy the IDers as an effective political movement.

er, substitute "we" for "you" in that last post.

my point is, it sure seems to me that the conservative right no longer believes in the rule of law, and they seem to be doing their damdest to get rid of whatever "inconvenience" it poses for them.

cheers

oh yeah, old Jimbo is back. yup, the parasite analogy is indeed a good one for this bottom-dewelling blood sucker. i remember making fun of Tammy-faye's horrid makeup job when i was much younger. Now i wonder if it wasn't some sort of camoflage paint to hide the parasite's true nature.

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/5/32005a.asp

pretty much says it all.