So the new secondary meme from the DI is not only that Jones copied everything, but that their charges against them are so spectacular that he’s “clammed up” and fallen silent after a year of constantly defending his ruling. Here’s John West in Agape Press:
However, Dr. John West, Discovery Institute’s vice president for public policy and legal affairs, says now that the judge’s largely copied ruling has been brought to the public’s attention, it appears that “mum’s the word.” West says he finds it “very interesting” that throughout the whole year Jones has been speaking around the U.S. in various venues, discussing his decision, defending it, and even “attacking anyone who criticizes it.”
The judge has even spoken “in some places apparently, from reports that I’ve heard, about how much time he invested in writing the opinion,” the Discovery Institute spokesman notes. And yet, he adds, “now that the study comes out showing that the central part of [Jones's ruling] was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU, he doesn’t have anything to say.”
Pure demagoguery, with a few blatant lies thrown in. It is a lie to claim that Judge Jones has gone around the country “attacking anyone who criticizes” his ruling. A flat out baldfaced lie. The only criticism he has ever engaged is the unbelievably ignorant criticism that came from Phyliss Schlafly, and only then in the context of giving a civics lesson on how the courts operate in our constitutional system. The DI has spent almost all of their energy for the last year attacking the ruling and he has never even responded to them, much less attacked him. Isn’t it odd that they’re claiming simultaneously that he attacks anyone who criticizes his ruling and that he’s not responding to their criticisms? Consistency is hardly their strong suit, but hey, whatever it takes to cast aspersions on people. Who cares about little things like the truth?
And I love this breathless revelation that he’s mentioned how long it took to write the opinion. Gosh, John, you’ve sure caught him with his hand in the cookie jar now. You see, one of the questions he’s always asked in interviews is what it’s like to take on such a high profile case. And he’s talked about the fact that this case was much more complex than the average case he has to handle on the Federal bench. It’s very rare that a case involves a dozen expert witnesses and 6 weeks of testimony, just as it’s very rare for a ruling to be 139 pages long. So yes, he’s probably mentioned that this case took up far more of his time than a normal case does. What a shocking revelation you’ve given to the world.
The revelation that Jones’ widely hailed ruling contained little original thought has put opponents of intelligent design on the defensive, West points out. So far, he says, the standard response from the Darwinists seems to be that “judges do this all the time — and in fact, we don’t want judges writing their own opinion because they don’t know what they’re doing.”
Well naturally, when you can’t actually answer the criticisms of your fake “study”, all you can do is present a straw man version of it you can knock down. If West can find a single “Darwinist” (whatever that is) who has said that we don’t want judges to write their own opinion because they don’t know what they’re doing, I’ll crawl to Seattle on my hands and knees and apologize to him. But he’s lying, through his teeth. No one has made such an argument and West damn well knows it. And he is nothing but a shameless liar.
What these evolutionists are suggesting, West explains, is that Judge Jones’s “wholesale, uncritical copying” of the ACLU’s supposed findings of fact in Kitzmiller is actually “the way it ought to be” in such cases. In fact, the intelligent design proponent notes, “there was one Darwinist on a Darwin blog who actually said something like that.”
Really? Quote it for us, John. People may have said “something like that” in regards to findings of fact specifically, but no one has ever suggested that judges should not “write their own opinion”. Findings of fact are distinct from the legal opinion, you lying sophist. And you know that, but you don’t care. Because all you care about is creating the perception of impropriety, and truth and ethics be damned. And yet you want to lecture us about how you’re standing up for God and morality? Yet another lie.