By: Rod Swift To: Laurie Appleton Re: Laurie Debunked!!!! LA> No, it was defeated by the

By: Rod Swift To: Laurie Appleton Re: Laurie Debunked!!!! LA> No, it was defeated by the "smart lawyers" of the ACLU and LA> NOT by the rightness of their position. With the distinct LA> possibility that both the judge and the Attorney for the LA> State were themselves evolutionists, then what else could be LA> expected! It was defeated in Federal Court, Appeals Court for the 5th Circuit, and the Supreme Court. Were they all "evolutionists?" And you claim the "lawyers for the states" were possibly evolutionists. And that the case was lost at the Federal Appeals Court Level because of "evolutionist attorneys for the state". Why did they lose at the Supreme Court level? Were the attorneys for the state that time also evolutionists? They lost, didn't they? As it shows below, from the court records, the arguing lawyer for the states' at the US Supreme Court was Wendell Bird himself -- a creationist. Surely if you claim arguing attorney bias influencing the Court's decisions in the lower court, you must be making the argument that with a creationist at the helm of the states' case there'd be a BIG WIN for the creationists. It was a big loss. I'm still trying to find out if Wendell Bird was the special prosecutor in the 5th Circuit appeal, therefore debunking your claim that the 5th Court of Appeal had "evolutionist" attorneys defending the states' laws. You claim that the trial at the State level failed because the state's attorneys were probably "evolutionists" The fact is that when it got to the Supreme Court, and *CREATIONIST* Wendell Bird was the one arguing the case, he failed too. Since Wendell Bird is not one of the "smart lawyers" who is an "evolutionist", it's nice to know you admit the lawyers for the states challenging the decision (including Wendell Bird, a person we all know supports Creationism) are "dumb" by your definition. Rod "...debunked again, Laurie. How sad!" Swift :) ___------------------------------------------------------------------ Cases at the Supreme Court are argued by pre-trial and post-trial briefs, amici curiae, and one lawyer presenting oral arguments for a party/parties to a case. The attorneys and amici curiae filed for the SUPREME COURT TRIAL were: ___------------------------------------------------------------------ ARGUING FOR APPELLANT: ---------------------- * WENDELL R BIRD, Special Assistant Attorney General, Georgia ASSISTING WITH BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: ------------------------------------ * A MORGAN BRIAN JR, Special Assistant Attorney General, Georgia * THOMAS T ANDERSON, Special Assistant Attorney General, Georgia * KENDALL L VICK, Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana * PATRICIA NALLEY BOWERS, Assistant Attorney General, Louisiana AMICI CURIAE BRIEFS FILED FOR REVERSAL OF LOWER COURT RULING: ------------------------------------------------------------- * CATHOLIC LEAGUE FOR RELIGIOUS AND CIVIL RIGHTS (Filed by Stephen Frederick McDowell) * CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY et al. (Filed by Michael J Woodruff, Kimberlee W Colby, Samuel E Ericsson and Forest D Montgomery) * CONCERNED WOMEN FOR AMERICA (Filed by Michael P Farris and Jordan W Lorence) ARGUING FOR APPELLEES: ---------------------- * JAY TOPKIS ASSISTING WITH BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: ----------------------------------- * JOHN DIGUILO * GERARD E HARPER * SAMUEL I ROSENBERG * JACK D NOVIK * ALLEN BLUMSTEIN * BURT NEUBORNE * NORMAN DORSEN * JOHN SEXTON * RON WILSON AMICI CURIAE BRIEFS FILED FOR AFFIRMANCE OF LOWER COURT RULING: --------------------------------------------------------------- * STATE OF NEW YORK et al. (Filed by Robert Abrams, Attorney General of New York; O Peter Sherwood, Solicitor General of Illinois; Paul M Glickman, Jane Levine, Suzanne Lynn and Marla Tepper, Assistant Attorneys General of Illinois; and Niel F Hartigan, Attorney General of Illinois) * THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATIN OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS et al. (Filed by Ann H Franke, Jacqueline W Mintz and Sheldon E Steinbach) * THE AMERICAN FEDERATINO OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO (Filed by Bruce A Miller and Stuart M Israel) * THE AMERICAN JEWISH CONGRESS et al. (Filed by Marvin E Frankel, Marc D Stern and Ronald A Krauss) * AMERICANS UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE et al. (Filed by Lee Boothby, Samuel Rabinove, Richard T Foltin and James M Parker) * THE ANTI-DEFAMATINO LEAGUE OF B'NAI B'RITH et al. (Filed by Ruti G Teitel, Justin J Finger, Jeffrey P Sinesky and Steven M Freeman) * THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (Filed by Barry H Garfinkel and Mark Herlihy) * THE NEW YORK COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY (Filed by Leo Pfeffer) * PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY et al. (Filed by Timothy B Dyk, A Douglas Melamed and Kerry W Kircher) * THE SPARTACIST LEAGUE et al. (Filed by Rachel H Wolkenstein) * A GROUP OF 72 NOBEL LAUREATES (Filed by Walter B Slocombe) OTHER AMICI CURIAE BRIEFS FILED: -------------------------------- * THE RABBINICAL ALLIANCE OF AMERICA et al. (Filed by John W Whitehead and Larry L Crain) * REVEREND BILL MCLEAN et al. (Filed by Philip E Kaplan) ___------------------------------------------------------------------ LA> An Atlanta attorney and Yale Law School graduate and ---------------- LA> member of the most prestigious legal organization, the LA> American Law institute, says; [quote snipped] LA> (The Origin of Species Revisited, W.R. Bird, 1991, Vol. 1, ---------- LA> p. 6. Reference given to: Aguillard v. Edwards, 778 F.2d LA> 225, 226, 227 (5th. Cir. 1985)(en banc) Laurie: Is this "Atlanta Attorney" Wendell R Bird himself? I quote from the US Supreme Court Decision in the Aguillard case. "COUNSEL: Wendell R. Bird, Special Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for appellants." Further, just because I like to watch you spin -- you claimed that the ACLU was the ones arguing this case. Here is the relevant quote from the opinion of the court, delivered by Justice Brennan: Appellees, who include parents of children attending Louisiana public schools, Louisiana teachers, and religious leaders, challenged the constitutionality of the Act in District Court, seeking an injunction and declaratory relief (2). And the best bit about this case is that two people who were on the side of the state in this case, backflipped: (2) ... The Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Orleans Parish School Board were among the original defendants in the suit but both later realigned as plaintiffs. What a riot... They started jumping ship as soon as the case was seen as a write-off! Since I further want to see you spin, let's see what the District Court judgement (summarised by the Supreme Court) really says about Evolution and Creationism, huh? The District Court granted the motion. Aguillard v. Treen, 634 F.Supp. 426 (ED La. 1985). The court held that there can be no valid secular reason for prohibiting the teaching of evolution, a theory historically opposed by some religious denominations. The court further concluded that "the teaching of 'creation-science' and 'creationism,' as contemplated by the statute, involves teaching 'tailored to the principles' of a particular religious sect or group of sects." Id., at 427 (citing Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 106 (1968)). The District Court therefore held that the Creationism Act violated the Establishment Clause either because it prohibited the teaching of evolution or because it required the teaching of creation science with the purpose of advancing a particular religious doctrine. Then what did the Appeals Court say? Again, the Supreme Court's opinion states: The court found that the Louisiana Legislature's actual intent was "to discredit evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism, a religious belief." Ibid. Because the Creationism Act was thus a law furthering a particular religious belief, the Court of Appeals held that the Act violated the Establishment Clause. And the reason why the Supreme Court values academic freedom over religious indoctrination in Cretinism? The Court has been particularly vigilant in monitoring compliance with the Establishment Clause in elementary and secondary schools. Families entrust public schools with the education of their children, but condition their trust on the understanding that the classroom will not purposely be used to advance religious views that may conflict with the private beliefs of the student and his or her family. Students in such institutions are impressionable and their attendance is involuntary. See, e. g., Grand Rapids School Dist. v. Ball, 473 U.S. 373, 383 (1985); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 60, n. 51 (1985); Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 369 (1975); Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 252-253 (1963) (BRENNAN, J., concurring). And why the creationists lost this one? Well, because of this! Note, kids, there's a great list of things you CAN'T do in US schools in the name of Jeeeeezus! :) Consequently, the Court has been required often to invalidate statutes which advance religion in public elementary and secondary schools. See, e.g., Grand Rapids School Dist. v. Ball, supra (school district's use of religious school teachers in public schools); Wallace v. Jaffree, supra (Alabama statute authorizing moment of silence for school prayer); Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (posting copy of Ten Commandments on public classroom wall); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (statute forbidding teaching of evolution); Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, supra (daily reading of Bible); Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 430 (1962) (recitation of "denominationally neutral" prayer). In summary, part V of the opinion of the court, it clearly states: The Louisiana Creationism Act advances a religious doctrine by requiring either the banishment of the theory of evolution from public school classrooms or the presentation of a religious viewpoint that rejects evolution in its entirety. The Act violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because it seeks to employ the symbolic and financial support of government to achieve a religious purpose. The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is Affirmed. And you claim that there was no religion behind this bill, Laurie?: Besides Senator Keith, several of the most vocal legislators also revealed their religious motives for supporting the bill in the official legislative history. See, e. g., id., at E-441, E-443 (Sen. Saunders noting that bill was amended so that teachers could refer to the Bible and other religious texts to support the creation-science theory); 2 App. E-561 -- E-562, E-610 (Rep. Jenkins contending that the existence of God was a scientific fact). See, e. g., 1 App. E-74 -- E-75 (noting that evolution is contrary to his family's religious beliefs); id., at E-313 (contending that evolution advances religions contrary to his own); id., at E-357 (stating that evolution is "almost a religion" to science teachers); id., at E-418 (arguing that evolution is cornerstone of some religions contrary to his own); 2 App. E-763 -- E-764 (author of model bill, from which Act is derived, sent copy of the model bill to Senator Keith and advised that "I view this whole battle as one between God and anti-God forces . . . . If evolution is permitted to continue . . . it will continue to be made to appear that a Supreme Being is unnecessary . . ."). The experts, who were relied upon by the sponsor of the bill and the legislation's other supporters, testified that creation science embodies the religious view that there is a supernatural creator of the universe. See, supra, at 591-592. And note that last line of that second paragraph... The author of a *model bill* that was sent to Senator Keith. This conclusively proves that the bill was authored by those outside the legislature -- something Laurie has denied all along! Justice Powell, in his CONCURRING OPINION, elucidates more on the court's view on creation as a science. Justice O'Connor concurs: The "doctrine or theory of creation" is commonly defined as "holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a transcendent God out of nothing." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 532 (unabridged 1981). "Evolution" is defined as "the theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types, the distinguishable differences being due to modifications in successive generations." Id., at 789. Thus, the Balanced Treatment Act mandates that public schools present the scientific evidence to support a theory of divine creation whenever they present the scientific evidence to support the theory of evolution. "Concepts concerning God or a supreme being of some sort are manifestly religious . . . . These concepts do not shed that religiosity merely because they are presented as a philosophy or as a science." Malnak v. Yogi, 440 F.Supp. 1284, 1322 (NJ 1977), aff'd per curiam, 592 F.2d 197 (CA3 1979). From the face of the statute, a purpose to advance a religious belief is apparent. But the best part is that Justice Powell describes the machinations of the Cretin-Lobbyists: In June 1980, Senator Bill Keith introduced Senate Bill 956 in the Louisiana Legislature. The stated purpose of the bill was to "assure academic freedom by requiring the teaching of the theory of creation ex nihilo in all public schools where the theory of evolution is taught." While a Senate committee was studying scientific creationism, Senator Keith introduced a second draft of the bill, requiring balanced treatment of "evolution-science" and "creation-science." Id., at E-108. Significantly, the model Act on which the Keith bill relied was also the basis for a similar statute in Arkansas. See McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F.Supp. 1255 (ED Ark. 1982). So not only is a model bill handed to Senator Keith, it was one presented to the Arkansas legislators! That's TWO state legislature examples of listening to creation-lobbyists. But more from the good Justice: The complaint in McLean was filed on May 27, 1981. On May 28, the Louisiana Senate committee amended the Keith bill to delete the illustrative list of scientific evidences. That is, to remove the problems that the McLean bill had in Arkansas. It continues: The legislature then held hearings on the amended bill that became the Balanced Treatment Act under review. The principal creation scientist to testify in support of the Act was Dr. Edward Boudreaux. He did not elaborate on the nature of creation science except to indicate that the "scientific evidences" of the theory are "the objective information of science [that] point[s] to conditions of a creator." 2 id., at E-501 -- E-502. He further testified that the recognized creation scientists in the United States, who "numbe[r] something like a thousand [and] who hold doctorate and masters degrees in all areas of science," are affiliated with either or both the Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society. Id., at E-503 -- E-504. Information on both of these organizations is part of the legislative history, and a review of their goals and activities sheds light on the nature of creation science as it was presented to, and understood by, the Louisiana Legislature. The Institute for Creation Research is an affiliate of the Christian Heritage College in San Diego, California. The Institute was established to address the "urgent need for our nation to return to belief in a personal, omnipotent Creator, who has a purpose for His creation and to whom all people must eventually give account." 1 id., at E-197. A goal of the Institute is "a revival of belief in special creation as the true explanation of the origin of the world." Therefore, the Institute currently is working on the "development of new methods for teaching scientific creationism in public schools." Id., at E-197 -- E-199. The Creation Research Society (CRS) is located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. A member must subscribe to the following statement of belief: "The Bible is the written word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true." 2 id., at E-583. To study creation science at the CRS, a member must accept "that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truth." Ibid (3). You've just been debunked, many times... Rod "...take a powder, Laurie!" Swift LA> As I have already pointed out, when the matter came to an appeal court LA> of 15 judges we got a split judgement of 8/7 in favour of the ACLU and LA> against the State, which proves beyond doubt that this was NOTHING LA> like an open and shut matter, as you seem determined to claim. Actually, you're wrong, Laurie, there were ONLY 3 judges hearing the case at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Further, the 15 judges was an appeal for rehearing. The appeal was denied 8-7, and the 7 justices didn't vote for creationism, as it states below. The 7 voted to rehear the case to hear *criticism* of the construction of the statute, which had not been heard at the Appeals Court level. You've been debunked again. I quote from Justice WHITE of the US Supreme Court, in Edwards et al v Aguillard et al (85-1513) in his CONCURRING OPINION, and I've capitalised the sections you require. My comment is in [...]: ___------------------------------------------------------------------------ EDWARDS, GOVERNOR OF LOUISIANA, ET AL. v. AGUILLARD ET AL. No. 85-1513 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ___------------------------------------------------------------------------ JUSTICE WHITE, concurring in the judgment. ...the District Judge, relying on the terms of the Act, discerned its purpose to be the furtherance of a religious belief, and a panel of the Court of Appeals agreed. OF THOSE FOUR JUDGES [District judge, and three Court of Appeals judges], two are Louisianians. I would accept this view of the statute. Even if as an original matter I might have arrived at a different conclusion based on a reading of the statute and the record before us, I cannot say that the two courts below are so plainly wrong that they should be reversed. Rehearing en banc was denied by an 8-7 vote, the dissenters expressing their disagreement with the panel decision. THE DISAGREEMENT, HOWEVER, WAS OVER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOUISIANA STATUTE... ___------------------------------------------------------------------------ * SLMR 2.1 * Death is life's answer to the question "Why?" * Origin: Perth Omen BBS -- FASTER LIVE InterNet (+619) 244 2111 (3:690/660)