|
| Affiliation | Republican |
|
| Name | John E. Jones |
| Address |
, Pennsylvania , United States |
| Email | None |
| Website | None |
| Born |
June 13, 1955
(68 years)
|
| Contributor | RP |
| Last Modifed | Barack O-blame-a
May 08, 2007 01:41pm |
| Tags |
|
| Info | Jones was assigned to the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District bench trial, the first direct challenge brought in the federal courts against a school district that mandated the teaching of intelligent design. He was praised by Tom Ridge, former Pennsylvania Governor and former head of the Department of Homeland Security, who said that "I can't imagine a better judge presiding over such an emotionally charged issue...he has an inquisitive mind, a penetrating intellect and an incredible sense of humor."[1]
On December 20, 2005, Jones ruled that the mandate was unconstitutional in a 139-page decision.[2]
After the ruling was handed down, some pundits immediately attacked it, notably Bill O'Reilly on Fox News accusing Jones of being a fascist and an activist judge. Leveling similar criticisms have been Casey Luskin and Jonathan Witt of the Discovery Institute, and Phyllis Schlafly.[3]
In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League on February 10, 2006 he responded to critics who claimed that he had "stabbed the evangelicals who got him onto the federal bench right in the back"[3] by noting that his duty was to the Constitution and not to special interest groups.[4]
In a November 2006 talk given at Bennington College, Jones again rejected the "activist judge" criticisms and explained the judiciary role and how judges decide cases,
"If you look at public polls in the United States, at any given time a significant percentage of Americans believe that it is acceptable to teach creationism in public high schools. And that gives rise to an assumption on the part of the public that judges should 'get with the program' and make decisions according to the popular will. There's a problem with that....The framers of the Constitution, in their almost infinite wisdom, designed the legislative and executive branches under Articles I and II to be directly responsive to the public will. They designed the judiciary, under Article III, to be responsive not to the public will--in effect to be a bulwark against public will at any given time--but to be responsible to the Constitution and the laws of the United States. That distinction, just like the role of precedent, tends to be lost in the analysis of judges' decisions, including my decision."
|
 | BOOKS |
 |
|
| Title |
Purchase |
Contributor |
|
| Start Date |
End Date |
Type |
Title |
Contributor |
|
| Date |
Category |
Headline |
Article |
Contributor |
|
| INFORMATION LINKS |
|
|
|
