Complete Sweep in the Dover Elections
Joshua Zelinsky
http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3196053
Dover CARES sweeps school dir. seats
STAFF REPORTS
Dover CARES candidates swept eight seats available on the Dover Area
School Board in tonight's election, according to unofficial vote totals
from the York County elections office.
Sixteen candidates sought the eight seats and were split into two
camps, based largely on the issue of intelligent design.
Dover CARES candidates think that if intelligent design is referenced,
it should be in an elective course, such as comparative religion.
The incumbent school board members who were ousted in Tuesday's
election favor mentioning intelligent design in biology classes.
Winning four-year seats tonight were Dover CARES candidates Bernadette
Reinking (2,754 votes), Terry Emig (2,716), Herbert McIlvaine Jr.
(2,677) and Bryan Rehm (2,625).
Incumbent board members seeking those seats were Sherrie Leber (2,584),
James Cashman (2,526), Edward Rowand (2,547) and Alan Bonsell (2,469).
Winning two-year seats were Dover CARES candidates Lawrence Gurreri
(2,623), Judy McIlvaine (2,658) and Patricia Dapp (2,670).
Incumbent board members seeking those seats were Eric Riddle (2,545),
Ronald Short (2,544) and Sheila Harkins (2,466).
In a race for a separate two-year seat, Dover CARES candidate Phil
Herman edged school board member David Napierskie, 2,542 votes to
2,516.
____________
While each election was won, note that the totals were close. This
election illustrates the importance of voting in elections. Any
thoughts as to what the new board will do, especially regarding
Kitzmiller?
-Josh Zelinsky
Harry K
Looks like a little bit of sane progress has been made in Dover.
Harry K
Dylan
Dylan
Bobby D. Bryant
Given that only 11 families were behind the suit, I find the numbers
reassuring.
> This election illustrates the importance of voting in elections. Any
> thoughts as to what the new board will do, especially regarding
> Kitzmiller?
Order a sticker for the library copy of _Pandas and People_ ?
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
coast...@gmail.com
of science with our vote. I am going to be paying much more attention
to my local elections in the future.
A.Carlson
wrote:
>See:
>
>http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3196053
>
>Dover CARES sweeps school dir. seats
>STAFF REPORTS
>
>Dover CARES candidates swept eight seats available on the Dover Area
>School Board in tonight's election, according to unofficial vote totals
>from the York County elections office.
>Sixteen candidates sought the eight seats and were split into two
>camps, based largely on the issue of intelligent design.
Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but...
I wonder how many people voted for change simply because the new
policy blatantly challenged established law even though they might
have themselves sympathized with the views of the current board.
The fact that the votes were still so extremely close is not
heartening, especially because it probably took all the hoopla
surrounding the current controversy to unseat the incumbents. At
least it should give other school board members across the country
pause.
It would be too bad if the pending case is now made largely mute.
Because the current board was so blatant in their attempts, it makes
for an ideal test case.
David D.
Dylan wrote:
> YeeeeeeeeeeeeHAH
>
Let's not get too carried away. Some of those votes were quite close.
It suggests they used to represent more than a very loud minority.
Denis Loubet
"Joshua Zelinsky" <zeli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1131510362.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> See:
>
> http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3196053
>
> Dover CARES sweeps school dir. seats
> STAFF REPORTS
> Dover CARES candidates think that if intelligent design is referenced,
> it should be in an elective course, such as comparative religion.
Should it also offer astrology as an elective?
Sheesh.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
Dylan
Legally, there is no way it can be made mute. Did you mean moot? If so,
there is no way it can be made moot either. Nor is there any way the
outcome of the elections can affect the case and its subsequent and
inevitable appeal to a higher court by whichever side loses. In my
opinion this case is destined for the Supreme Court because the
litigants on both sides are going to send it there. The Supreme Court
may not take it. But the appeal will be made nonetheless. Besides,
Judge John Jones has not yet ruled. What if he rules in favor of the
school board and against the plaintiff parents? This is not impossible.
Judges often give the impression they're going to rule one way, but
then rule the other way. Doing so gives them the aura of fairness. The
proof of the pudding will be in the eating -- meaning the judge's
written decision. Let's wait for it.
Dylan
Deadrat
"Dylan" <desertmou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131521060.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> A.Carlson wrote:
> > On 8 Nov 2005 20:26:02 -0800, "Joshua Zelinsky" <zeli...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >See:
> > >
> > >http://www.yorkdispatch.com/local/ci_3196053
> > >
> > >Dover CARES sweeps school dir. seats
> > >STAFF REPORTS
> > >
> > >Dover CARES candidates swept eight seats available on the Dover Area
> > >School Board in tonight's election, according to unofficial vote totals
> > >from the York County elections office.
> > >Sixteen candidates sought the eight seats and were split into two
> > >camps, based largely on the issue of intelligent design.
> >
> > Not to look a gift horse in the mouth but...
> >
> > I wonder how many people voted for change simply because the new
> > policy blatantly challenged established law even though they might
> > have themselves sympathized with the views of the current board.
> >
> > The fact that the votes were still so extremely close is not
> > heartening, especially because it probably took all the hoopla
> > surrounding the current controversy to unseat the incumbents. At
> > least it should give other school board members across the country
> > pause.
> >
> > It would be too bad if the pending case is now made largely mute.
>
> Legally, there is no way it can be made mute. Did you mean moot? If so,
> there is no way it can be made moot either.
I'm not sure you're right. The plaintiff's asked for, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief. The former is the statement we* all want
from the judge stating that IDiocy is creationism and therefore by law
cannot be taught; the latter is an enforceable court order essentially
rescinding the Dover policy. If the new school board dumps the policy,
then there's nothing to enjoin, and the request for an injunction would be
made moot. I think the law gives the judge discretion on declaratory
judgments: he doesn't have to issue such a ruling.
But, I'm still not a lawyer, so this is an amateur opinion.
Deadrat
(*By we, I mean the good guys.)
Dylan
Deadrat wrote:
> "Dylan" <desertmou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1131521060.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
. . . .
Well, I'm not a lawyer either (both of my brothers are, which doesn't
help me any, nor do I incline to ask their opinions, for reasons which
will remain mute on TO), but I know that the new board cannot act in
this matter till its members officially take their seats. Nor do I know
when that will be. But even if they do take power in time to render the
case moot by revoking the existing ID policy, they may choose not to.
They may listen to lawyers from both sides and decide it is best NOT to
render the case moot, regardless of the probability that they execrate
that policy and are slavering to rescind it. It may be best for all
concerned, not to mention the American public at large, to let this
case go forward as a definitive test. I know that I, if I were just
elected to the board -- and you know where I stand -- would
choose not to revise existing policy.
There is also the strictly political angle to consider. If these kinds
of decisions remain the province of continuing seesaw elections, then
the courts never will get the chance to rule definitively. Note the
seesaw elections in Kansas over the past decade. At one election one
side wins, at the next one the other side wins, then the first side
wins and regains power -- and in such circumstances the LEGAL
issues are never resolved.
So as I see it, there are good reasons for the newly elected board NOT
to act during the ongoing litigation till the ultimate disposition of
the case by the Supreme Court (by either choosing to hear an appeal or
by choosing not to).
In the mean time the judge has power to issue temporary injunctive
relief to the plaintiff parents (if their children are still in school
there) contingent on the ultimate disposition of the case.
Dylan
BruceW
> ...
> Winning four-year seats tonight were Dover CARES candidates Bernadette
> Reinking (2,754 votes), Terry Emig (2,716), Herbert McIlvaine Jr.
> (2,677) and Bryan Rehm (2,625).
>
> Incumbent board members seeking those seats were Sherrie Leber (2,584),
> James Cashman (2,526), Edward Rowand (2,547) and Alan Bonsell (2,469).
>
> Winning two-year seats were Dover CARES candidates Lawrence Gurreri
> (2,623), Judy McIlvaine (2,658) and Patricia Dapp (2,670).
>
> Incumbent board members seeking those seats were Eric Riddle (2,545),
> Ronald Short (2,544) and Sheila Harkins (2,466).
>
> In a race for a separate two-year seat, Dover CARES candidate Phil
> Herman edged school board member David Napierskie, 2,542 votes to
> 2,516.
> ____________
>
> While each election was won, note that the totals were close. This
> election illustrates the importance of voting in elections.
> ...
Indeed.
Dover CARES Incumbents Margin %
Four-year seats:
Reinking 2,754 Leber 2,584 170 51.6
Emig 2,716 Rowand 2,547 169 51.6
McIlvaine 2,677 Cashman 2,526 151 51.5
Rehm 2,625 Bonsell 2,469 156 51.5
Two-year seats:
Dapp 2,670 Riddle 2,545 125 51.2
McIlvaine 2,658 Short 2,544 114 51.1
Gurreri 2,623 Harkins 2,466 157 51.5
Separate two-year seat:
Herman 2,542 Napierskie 2,516 26 50.3
> Any thoughts as to what the new board will do, especially regarding
> Kitzmiller?
Not sure what you mean here, especially given that we're still 8 or
so weeks away from a verdict in the case.
-BruceW
BruceW
> ...
> So as I see it, there are good reasons for the newly elected board NOT
> to act during the ongoing litigation till the ultimate disposition of
> the case by the Supreme Court (by either choosing to hear an appeal or
> by choosing not to).
> ...
I don't understand. If the judge does rule against Dover, why would the
new board appeal? Why do you think it *should* appeal?
-BruceW
an...@sci.sci
I can see it now, the court rules against ID, and orders the school
board to pay court costs, and the *new* members of the board are stuck
trying to find a way to pay for the harm their predecessors did.
Is there any way the judge could rule the former board members
individually personally liable for court costs?
.
Ron O
What gets to me is who would vote for Bonsell after his court antics?
This is a person that you are trusting with the education of your
children that tried to lie in court. What is Bonsell teaching your
kids if they followed the trial in their social studies classes?
Ron Okimoto
CreateThis
All of them appear close. And this is after all of the incumbents were
nationally exposed as ridiculous and dishonest. Not exactly a
resounding victory, but I'll take it over the alternative.
CT
Ray F-L
(http://www.yorkdispatch.com/features/elections) shows that all of the
winners for the school board ran as Democrats, while the defeated
incumbents are all Republicans.
Ray Freeman-Lynde
Andrew Arensburger
> Given that only 11 families were behind the suit, I find the numbers
> reassuring.
IIRC it was 11 people from 8 families.
--
Andrew Arensburger, Systems guy University of Maryland
arensb.no-...@umd.edu Office of Information Technology
Gentlemen, start your debuggers!
Robert Grumbine
>Summary: The IDiots were all replaced by pro-evolution members.
The IDiots were replaced, on slender majorities, by not violently
anti-science members. Pro-evolution, or pro-science is a little
beyond the observation. Better than the alternative, but those
majorities will reverse next election. Bonsell got almost 2500
votes in spite of having been on the witness stand the week before
and showing himself to be a liar -- 2500 people _like_ the lies
he told. They'll vote for him next time. If only 200 people who
voted for CARES this time stay home next time, Bonsell is back in.
>I can see it now, the court rules against ID, and orders the school
>board to pay court costs, and the *new* members of the board are stuck
>trying to find a way to pay for the harm their predecessors did.
Such is the task of all who are elected after mass corruption and
incompetence.
>Is there any way the judge could rule the former board members
>individually personally liable for court costs?
Doubt it. They were executing their jobs as elected to. It
probably doesn't make a legal difference, but the fact that the
incumbents got nearly half the vote makes it pretty weak to think
that fraud, etc., could be declared. The voters (who voted them in)
got what they wanted and, demonstrably, were pretty happy with it
even after the trial.
--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Cyde Weys
Robert Grumbine wrote:
> In article <5bab$4371daef$c690c02a$22...@TSOFT.COM>, <an...@sci.sci> wrote:
> >Summary: The IDiots were all replaced by pro-evolution members.
>
> The IDiots were replaced, on slender majorities, by not violently
> anti-science members. Pro-evolution, or pro-science is a little
> beyond the observation. Better than the alternative, but those
> majorities will reverse next election. Bonsell got almost 2500
> votes in spite of having been on the witness stand the week before
> and showing himself to be a liar -- 2500 people _like_ the lies
> he told. They'll vote for him next time. If only 200 people who
> voted for CARES this time stay home next time, Bonsell is back in.
You're seriously overestimating the capabilities of the American voting
public. You go into the voting booth with the intent of, say, picking
a president, senators, your representative, whatever. And then there's
posts like Lieutenant Governor where you barely even know who the
candidates are and tend to vote on party lines. And then there's the
assortment of random people up for School Board seats and what not.
When I went to vote in 2004, I went in to vote for President and
Representative (no Senate seats were up for reelection I believe). And
then I essentially picked a bunch of School Board candidates at random
because I had no clue who any of them were (and no party affiliation
was listed). Maybe I should've abstained from voting in races about
which I had no clue, but it seemed like a multiple choice test to me,
and I've been trained to always pick an option.
So I don't think you can say there are 2,500 clueless people who like
lies. Most of them probably just voted randomly.
(attr. Cyde)
Dylan
If the judge John Jones rules for the defendants (the existing school
board, since the newly elected members haven't taken their seats yet),
then the plaintiff side (the 11 parents' side, the one that is
supported by the ACLU) will appeal. If Jones rules for the plaintiffs,
then the defendants will appeal. Both sides have vowed to appeal. The
new board has nothing to do with it, because the case is predicated
upon the policy of the outgoing board and frozen there. Nor will the
new board have to act to change anything, because the judge will see to
it that the existing policy will not be enforced pending the outcome of
his decision. This case is in the hands of the American judiciary
system, and the school board, regardless of whether it is the old one
or the new, cannot interfere or overrule the judge. Reason: the
American judiciary branch of government is the highest of all, makes
all final decisions presented to it, and no other branch -- most
certainly not the local school board, whether old or newly elected
-- can interfere in the process. It's simply out of their hands.
This baby is destined for the Supreme Court, which can choose not to
hear it and let the lower court ruling stand. Or it could choose to
hear it and make the final decision one way or the other. This is the
reason it is sooooo important for Bush not to get away with appointing
antievolution creationist justices (such as Miers) who would rule in
favor of ID and seriously threaten science teaching in our schools.
The new board has no right to appeal and is not, nor can be, a
litigant.
Dylan
Dylan
I don't think money will be a problem. The interest groups will raise
it.
Dylan
Dylan
Hey dudes,
This has gone out of the hands of the electorate. Once the Supreme
Court finally rules (or chooses not to hear the case), then, no matter
who sits on the board, the majority will simply not be allowed to break
the law of the land. If they did they would be tried, convicted and do
time -- like Martha Stewart did.
Dylan
David D.
Cyde Weys wrote:
> And
> then I essentially picked a bunch of School Board candidates at random
> because I had no clue who any of them were (and no party affiliation
> was listed). Maybe I should've abstained from voting in races about
> which I had no clue,
Maybe ????????
Mark Isaak
wrote:
December, I heard somewhere. The court decision might well come
before the new board sits.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Cyde Weys
Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
> Winning four-year seats tonight were Dover CARES candidates [...] Herbert McIlvaine Jr.
[...]
> Winning two-year seats were Dover CARES candidates [...] Judy McIlvaine [...]
Hell yeah! Two of my distant relatives are anti-IDists! Rational
thinking must run in our blood.
(For those of you who don't know, my last name is McIlwain, and
everyone with that name or a variant on it in the U.S. is pretty much
related by an ancestor who came over on one of the first boats)
Noone Inparticular
Cyde Weys Mcllwain...now THAT'S a name.
Dylan
Hey Cyde Weys!
See the movie "Sideways"? If so, what did you think of it? Enough to
fashion a rather creative screen name? --Dylan
Dylan
Mcllwain sounds very Welsh. Maybe Irish. Celtic at any rate. I'm
Welsh, named Dylan Carmarthen. Just kidding, though I really am part
Welsh. I understand my ancestors were coal thieves who were expatriated
to Massachusetts' shores in 1660. --Dylan
Lt. Kizhe Catson
Don't get too cocky, kid ;-). If that's so, then you are also related
to famous net-kook Robert McElwaine.
This IMPORTANT information sHOUld BE widely DISsemiNaTED!!!!!
-- Kizhe
Bobby D. Bryant
>
> Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
>
>> Winning four-year seats tonight were Dover CARES candidates [...] Herbert McIlvaine Jr.
> [...]
>> Winning two-year seats were Dover CARES candidates [...] Judy McIlvaine [...]
>
> Hell yeah! Two of my distant relatives are anti-IDists! Rational
> thinking must run in our blood.
I have a brother in Kansas, with no particular interest in science,
who laughs at ID.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Ray Martinez
IDists will alsp eventually lose in court = penalty present in all
aspects of society. Either way the Bible is proven true.
Ray
scooter
Ray Martinez wrote:
> The Dover results prove the Romans wrath of God blinding penalty.
Although I have a feeling I'll regret asking you: How do the Dover
elections prove anything?
> The IDists will alsp eventually lose in court = penalty present in all aspects of society.
If they lose in court it will be because of the Constitutionality (or
lack thereof) of ID based on its religious implications.
> Either way the Bible is proven true.
For someone who demands such high standards for evolution you sure
don't hold the same paradigm for your interpretation of the Bible.
>
> Ray
Billy Wardlow
Dana Tweedy
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1131582564.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> The Dover results prove the Romans wrath of God blinding penalty.
There is no "blinding penalty". God doesn't punish people for using their
intellect.
>The
> IDists will alsp eventually lose in court = penalty present in all
> aspects of society.
A "penalty" that does not exist.
> Either way the Bible is proven true.
Only in Ray's little circular world.
DJT
Chris Krolczyk
I suppose that someone can actually understand what
the above paragraph means in RaySpeak, but I'm not
one of them. Translations...?
-Chris Krolczyk
Paul J Gans
I'd think that they'd want a decision. A decsion puts
ID to rest more or less permanently in Dover (I know,
permanent in politics is about three years, but hey...)
Otherwise they leave themselves open to a Kansas repeat.
Remember? After the good guys swept the bad guys from
office everyone relaxed and forgot about it. So the
bad guys came back and took control and now Kansas
officially is an ID state.
- --- Paul J. Gans
Cyde Weys
Lt. Kizhe Catson wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> > Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
> >>Winning four-year seats tonight were Dover CARES candidates [...] Herbert McIlvaine Jr.
> >
> > Hell yeah! Two of my distant relatives are anti-IDists! Rational
> > thinking must run in our blood.
> >
> > (For those of you who don't know, my last name is McIlwain, and
> > everyone with that name or a variant on it in the U.S. is pretty much
> > related by an ancestor who came over on one of the first boats)
>
> Don't get too cocky, kid ;-). If that's so, then you are also related
> to famous net-kook Robert McElwaine.
Shhh .... we don't talk about him much, he's kind of the black sheep of
the extended family.
Cyde Weys
Dylan wrote:
> Noone Inparticular wrote:
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > > Joshua Zelinsky wrote:
> > >
> > > > Winning four-year seats tonight were Dover CARES candidates [...] Herbert McIlvaine Jr.
> > > [...]
> > > > Winning two-year seats were Dover CARES candidates [...] Judy McIlvaine [...]
> > >
> > > Hell yeah! Two of my distant relatives are anti-IDists! Rational
> > > thinking must run in our blood.
> > >
> > > (For those of you who don't know, my last name is McIlwain, and
> > > everyone with that name or a variant on it in the U.S. is pretty much
> > > related by an ancestor who came over on one of the first boats)
> >
> > Cyde Weys Mcllwain...now THAT'S a name.
Haha, I haven't yet gone to the courts and changed my name to Cyde ...
although that would be cool. I wouldn't want to give up the last name
though, it has too much history. Weys would make a good middle name
though.
Benjamin Robert McIlwain? Boring.
Cyde Weys McIlwain? Hell yeah!
> Mcllwain sounds very Welsh. Maybe Irish. Celtic at any rate. I'm
> Welsh, named Dylan Carmarthen. Just kidding, though I really am part
> Welsh. I understand my ancestors were coal thieves who were expatriated
> to Massachusetts' shores in 1660.
Scotch-Irish, actually. Either the Scotch were occupying the Irish or
the Irish were occupying the Scotch (I forget which) after a war, but
they evidently didn't do a good job, since they just ended up merging,
getting married, having babies, etc. The McIlwain clan came out of
that. I went to Ireland a few years ago and we looked up the McIlwains
there -- some were spelled McElwaine, MacIlwain, McIlvaine, whatever.
Still the same people, since the only thing at issue is the imperfect
romanization from the original .. what, Gaelic?
Cyde Weys
Hey, that movie totally copied off of me. I've been using the nym
"Cyde" since EverQuest early beta, and I added the surname "Weys" upon
reaching level 20 in the retail release (anyone who's played EQ
understands this point).
Wow, what a long time it's been, and how little innovation too. I
played WoW recently and ... practically the same. You know, the
graphics are better, and there's quests ... but really, the exact same
thing.
A.Carlson
wrote:
>
>BruceW wrote:
>> Dylan wrote:
>>
>> > ...
>> > So as I see it, there are good reasons for the newly elected board NOT
>> > to act during the ongoing litigation till the ultimate disposition of
>> > the case by the Supreme Court (by either choosing to hear an appeal or
>> > by choosing not to).
>> > ...
>>
>> I don't understand. If the judge does rule against Dover, why would the
>> new board appeal? Why do you think it *should* appeal?
>>
>> -BruceW
>
>If the judge John Jones rules for the defendants (the existing school
>board, since the newly elected members haven't taken their seats yet),
>then the plaintiff side (the 11 parents' side, the one that is
>supported by the ACLU) will appeal. If Jones rules for the plaintiffs,
>then the defendants will appeal. Both sides have vowed to appeal. The
>new board has nothing to do with it, because the case is predicated
>upon the policy of the outgoing board and frozen there.
Is that true??? It strikes me as though the plaintiffs have an
argument against the school board as a body and not the individual
members of the school board themselves. In this case it just so
happens that one of the parties to this trial just happens to have
interchangeable members, as yesterday's election just proved.
> Nor will the
>new board have to act to change anything, because the judge will see to
>it that the existing policy will not be enforced pending the outcome of
>his decision.
Yes, he can certainly do that but my guess (which is what we're all
pretty much doing here) is that the school board is still free to
carry out its own responsibilities that don't go against any such
injunction and in effect possibly make certain issues moot. It
wouldn't be much different than if two parties to a suit come to terms
in the middle of proceedings. Generally, that stops the proceedings
right there. In this case, however, there may be one or two issues,
such as compensation, that may have to be decided separately from
whether or not the policy itself is unconstitutional.
I know of at least one case that was before the Supreme Court where
the justices refused to go on when they found out that the parties in
question had come to an agreement on their own.
>This case is in the hands of the American judiciary
>system, and the school board, regardless of whether it is the old one
>or the new, cannot interfere or overrule the judge.
No, but they can change the facts on the ground that can have a
profound effect on the proceedings.
>Reason: the
>American judiciary branch of government is the highest of all, makes
>all final decisions presented to it, and no other branch -- most
>certainly not the local school board, whether old or newly elected
>-- can interfere in the process. It's simply out of their hands.
The court can certainly order an injunction for the policy in question
not to be carried out but that shouldn't stop a newly seated board to
get rid of the questionable policy itself.
>This baby is destined for the Supreme Court, which can choose not to
>hear it and let the lower court ruling stand. Or it could choose to
>hear it and make the final decision one way or the other. This is the
>reason it is sooooo important for Bush not to get away with appointing
>antievolution creationist justices (such as Miers) who would rule in
>favor of ID and seriously threaten science teaching in our schools.
>
>The new board has no right to appeal and is not, nor can be, a
>litigant.
It is not the 'new' board that is a litigant, but the 'board' itself.
They haven't restructured the system, only changed some of the
players, which sometimes just happens.
A.Carlson
For that reason, it has been shown that people with simple names like
'Smith' or 'Jones', as opposed to more ethnic names, and people who
appear at the top of the list of candidate names tend to do much
better than their opponents when other factors such as party
affiliation and name recognition aren't in play. Some jurisdictions
actually assign name order on the ballot by lottery so that candidate
'Addams' or 'Abbot' don't always have too much of an unfair advantage.
On the positive side, the title 'incumbent' is usually worth a few
votes as well and the good guys are going to be the incumbents next
time, although, that said, I can't see how most voters couldn't have
been aware of issues concerning the school board candidates, either by
name or incumbency, at least in this particular race.
Walter Bushell
So much for the reality principle then.
--
Guns don't kill people; automobiles kill people.
Dylan
If you will permit me, I think I can unpack some of RaySpeak.
The RaySpeak term "Romans wrath" refers to Romans 1:32 (NIV) in which
Paul says "that those who do such things deserve death [the RaySpeak
term is "blinding penalty"]. Paul's term "such things" refers (Ro.1:29)
to those who "have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil,
greed," and so on (a long list). They practice such evil "since they
did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God" (Ro.128).
The "knowledge of God" they did not retain was "God's invisible
qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- [that] have
been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
men are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). Those who did not retain such
knowledge and were "without excuse" were -- contrary to RaySpeak
-- those who ALREADY BELIEVED in God. "They knew God" (Rom. 1:21).
RaySpeak maintains that they were atheists, implying that they did not
know God. But here RaySpeak flies in Paul's face, since Paul clearly
says, and more than once, that these people "understood from what has
been made" (Rom. 1:20).
Mark this text well, for Ray Martinez is deceiving you here. Ray says
the people who were behaving wickedly were atheists who were not
convinced by natural evidence (creation). Paul says just the opposite.
Paul says (Acts 17:16-43) that they were ALREADY WORSHIPPING an
"unknown God" who was the Hebrew God Yahveh.
RaySpeak falsely links those who accept evolution as God's way of
creating are atheists.
That's where he's wrong and where he goes contrary to Scripture.
Dear friends on TO, don't let RaySpeak deceive you into rejecting God
because of Ray's misrepresentation of God.
Dylan
BruceW
Dylan wrote:
Of course, the new board can't change the past and it will be subject
to the judge's ruling, but why would it be required to appeal an adverse
decision just because that was the stated intention of the old board?
-BruceW
Dylan
I don't know the answer to that. But I surmise they're locked into that
position. They've already finished their case and the decision is in
the hands of the judge. The anti-evolution creationists in league with
the intelligent designists have solidified their position. The
pro-evolution scientists in league with the the ACLU et al. have
solidified their position. Why should the new board members want to
upset this carefully stacked apple cart? Besides, they're just ordinary
folk, local people, pro-evolutionists to be sure, but not sophisticated
in the politico-legalities involved. There even may be laws governing
this process which would prohibit the new board members from changing
the facts on the ground, as one observer on this thread put it. Maybe a
real-live lawyer who's familiar with the issues and the case would be
willing to post an answer on TO. Anybody out there have a contact?
Dylan
CreateThis
> I don't understand. If the judge does rule against Dover, why would the
> new board appeal? Why do you think it *should* appeal?
Maybe they should appeal to force a Supreme Court decision. This
question is headed there sooner or later, and I think sooner might be
better, before the Court gets too comfortable in its new skin.
CT
Dylan
CreateThis wrote:
> BruceW wrote:
>
> > I don't understand. If the judge does rule against Dover, why would the
> > new board appeal? Why do you think it *should* appeal?
But nobody can force the Supreme Court to do anything; that's why it's
called Supreme. It sits at the apex of the governmental pyramid. It has
the final say in all matters of legal dispute. The President must
accept its Supremacy. So must Congress. If it chooses not to hear the
Dover case, the Dover case will not be heard by it. Period. That's the
way the Founding Fathers set it up in the Constitution. If it lost that
position, we would no longer have our democracy. There would be no
effective checks and balances on either the Executive Branch or on the
Legislative Branch.
> This
> question is headed there sooner or later, and I think sooner might be
> better, before the Court gets too comfortable in its new skin.
>
> CT
For this scenario to occur, the Court would have to see the Dover case
as compelling, vital to the national interest. But "compelling" and
"vital to the national interest" constitute a high high bar for any
case to poll-vault over. One such case occurred in Gore v. Bush in
resolving the 2000 Presidential election. The case was seen as
"compelling" and "vital to the national interest." The Supreme Court
reached down and snatched the case up out of the hands of the Florida
Supreme Court, out of the hands of the U.S. Congress, out of
everybody's hands. Nobody could do any at all to stop it (short of an
armed insurrection and overthrow of the Republic by force of arms).
Legally, Constitutionally, the Supreme Court of the United States of
America holds ultimate power, and it does precisely what it wants to
do. That's why it is so extremely important that no more Fundamentalist
Creationists -- such as Harriet Miers, the one Bush nominated to
sit in Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's seat, who resigned within a couple
of weeks of Bush's nomination -- OFF OF THE COURT!
Dylan
A.Carlson
Awe come on now...This is America!
The right to vote your conscience, the right to vote unconscious,
what's the bit diff!? They're all corollaries of the right to vote.
Speaking of which, do they still close down bars and taverns on
election day? (Is it even illegal to vote while drunk?)
Richard McBane
<snip>
> Benjamin Robert McIlwain? Boring.
> Cyde Weys McIlwain? Hell yeah!
>
>
>>Mcllwain sounds very Welsh. Maybe Irish. Celtic at any rate. I'm
>>Welsh, named Dylan Carmarthen. Just kidding, though I really am part
>>Welsh. I understand my ancestors were coal thieves who were expatriated
>>to Massachusetts' shores in 1660.
>
>
> Scotch-Irish, actually. Either the Scotch were occupying the Irish or
> the Irish were occupying the Scotch (I forget which) after a war, but
> they evidently didn't do a good job, since they just ended up merging,
> getting married, having babies, etc. The McIlwain clan came out of
> that. I went to Ireland a few years ago and we looked up the McIlwains
> there -- some were spelled McElwaine, MacIlwain, McIlvaine, whatever.
> Still the same people, since the only thing at issue is the imperfect
> romanization from the original .. what, Gaelic?
There was a bit of migration back and forth between the Scots and Irish.
A lot of Scots were settled in Northern Ireland by the british. By
the way, Scotch is a drink, the people are Scots although a lot of
people use the term Scotch-Irish. McIlwain in its various spellings is
a sept of Clan MacBean (pronounced Bain), although there may have been a
separate clan as well. See:
http://www.clanmacbean.net/septs.html
My parents always said that we were Scotch-Irish, but when I looked into
our family tree I found out that that various parts of the family
migrated directly from Scotland to Ohio between 1800 and 1815.
--
Richard McBane
BruceW
CreateThis wrote:
> Maybe they should appeal to force a Supreme Court decision. This
> question is headed there sooner or later, and I think sooner might be
> better, before the Court gets too comfortable in its new skin.
Appeal of an adverse ruling would make sense had the old board been
retained, but it was not. The new board was elected, in part, because
it opposed those actions of the old board that led to the lawsuit. It
would be nonsensical for them to pursue a court's approval to follow
policies that they did not want to be implemented in the first place.
The only reason I can thing of for the new board to appeal would be in
the hope of avoiding the cost of the plaintiffs legal expenses, and that
strikes me as a risky strategy for the district. It is also questionable
whether a court would agree to hear an appeal under such circumstances.
-BruceW
AC
Dylan <desertmou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> CreateThis wrote:
>> David D. wrote:
>>
>> > Dylan wrote:
>> >
>> >>YeeeeeeeeeeeeHAH
>> >>
>> >
>> > Let's not get too carried away. Some of those votes were quite close.
>> > It suggests they used to represent more than a very loud minority.
>>
>> All of them appear close. And this is after all of the incumbents were
>> nationally exposed as ridiculous and dishonest. Not exactly a
>> resounding victory, but I'll take it over the alternative.
>>
>> CT
>
> Hey dudes,
>
> This has gone out of the hands of the electorate. Once the Supreme
> Court finally rules (or chooses not to hear the case), then, no matter
> who sits on the board, the majority will simply not be allowed to break
> the law of the land. If they did they would be tried, convicted and do
> time -- like Martha Stewart did.
If the judge rules against the plaintiffs, then it's going to be in the
hands of the school board. The school board is a legal entity separate from
its members, and if the new board accepts the judgement, then that's it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@hotmail.com
Deadrat
>
> BruceW wrote:
> > Dylan wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > > So as I see it, there are good reasons for the newly elected board NOT
> > > to act during the ongoing litigation till the ultimate disposition of
> > > by choosing not to).
> > > ...
> >
> > I don't understand. If the judge does rule against Dover, why would the
> > new board appeal? Why do you think it *should* appeal?
> >
>
> If the judge John Jones rules for the defendants (the existing school
> board, since the newly elected members haven't taken their seats yet),
> then the plaintiff side (the 11 parents' side, the one that is
> supported by the ACLU) will appeal. If Jones rules for the plaintiffs,
> then the defendants will appeal. Both sides have vowed to appeal. The
> new board has nothing to do with it, because the case is predicated
> upon the policy of the outgoing board and frozen there. Nor will the
> new board have to act to change anything, because the judge will see to
> it that the existing policy will not be enforced pending the outcome of
> his decision. This case is in the hands of the American judiciary
> system, and the school board, regardless of whether it is the old one
> or the new, cannot interfere or overrule the judge.
> Reason: the
> American judiciary branch of government is the highest of all, makes
> all final decisions presented to it, and no other branch -- most
> certainly not the local school board, whether old or newly elected
> -- can interfere in the process.
Hmmm. You must have had a different civics class from the one I
took. The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government; it's not the
highest. The federal courts are established and can be eliminated by
law; the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction is established and
can be changed by law. The courts have no independent means of
enforcing their decisions. And so on.
> It's simply out of their hands.
> This baby is destined for the Supreme Court, which can choose not to
> hear it and let the lower court ruling stand. Or it could choose to
> hear it and make the final decision one way or the other. This is the
> reason it is sooooo important for Bush not to get away with appointing
> antievolution creationist justices (such as Miers) who would rule in
> favor of ID and seriously threaten science teaching in our schools.
>
> The new board has no right to appeal and is not, nor can be, a
> litigant.
The defendant is the Dover Area Schools District. Its agents at any
time are the board current at that time. The DASD has the right of
appeal. New board; old board. Doesn't matter.
>
> Dylan
>
Deadrat
>
> CreateThis wrote:
> > BruceW wrote:
> >
> > > I don't understand. If the judge does rule against Dover, why would the
> > > new board appeal? Why do you think it *should* appeal?
>
> But nobody can force the Supreme Court to do anything; that's why it's
> called Supreme. It sits at the apex of the governmental pyramid. It has
> the final say in all matters of legal dispute. The President must
> accept its Supremacy. So must Congress.
Where do you get this? The President doesn't have to accept the Supreme
Court decisions. As Andrew Jackson said of a ruling he didn't like, "John
Marshall [the Chief Justice] has made his decision. Now let him enforce it."
It is strictly habit and political expediency that lead the other two branches
to accede to SCOTUS decisions.
> If it chooses not to hear the
> Dover case, the Dover case will not be heard by it. Period. That's the
> way the Founding Fathers set it up in the Constitution. If it lost that
> position, we would no longer have our democracy. There would be no
> effective checks and balances on either the Executive Branch or on the
> Legislative Branch.
>
> > This
> > question is headed there sooner or later, and I think sooner might be
> > better, before the Court gets too comfortable in its new skin.
> >
> > CT
>
> For this scenario to occur, the Court would have to see the Dover case
> as compelling, vital to the national interest. But "compelling" and
> "vital to the national interest" constitute a high high bar for any
> case to poll-vault over.
Where do you get this? As far as I know, all it takes for an appeal
to be heard is the vote of four justices.
> One such case occurred in Gore v. Bush in
> resolving the 2000 Presidential election. The case was seen as
> "compelling" and "vital to the national interest." The Supreme Court
> reached down and snatched the case up out of the hands of the Florida
> Supreme Court, out of the hands of the U.S. Congress, out of
> everybody's hands.
Where do you get this? The Florida Supreme Court made its ruling,
and there was an appeal. SCOTUS didn't "snatch" anything from them.
The US Congress is the final arbiter on certifying electors. SCOTUS
didn't snathch anything from them either.
> Nobody could do any at all to stop it (short of an
> armed insurrection and overthrow of the Republic by force of arms).
> Legally, Constitutionally, the Supreme Court of the United States of
> America holds ultimate power,
Where do you get this? SCOTUS arrogated to itself the power to
declare laws unconstitutional. That everyone agrees to abide by these
decisions is testimony to our society, not the ultimate power of a court.
Deadrat
Deadrat
>
> CreateThis wrote:
> > David D. wrote:
> >
> > > Dylan wrote:
> > >
> > >>YeeeeeeeeeeeeHAH
> > >>
> > >
> > > Let's not get too carried away. Some of those votes were quite close.
> > > It suggests they used to represent more than a very loud minority.
> >
> > All of them appear close. And this is after all of the incumbents were
> > nationally exposed as ridiculous and dishonest. Not exactly a
> > resounding victory, but I'll take it over the alternative.
> >
> > CT
>
> Hey dudes,
>
> This has gone out of the hands of the electorate. Once the Supreme
> Court finally rules (or chooses not to hear the case), then, no matter
> who sits on the board, the majority will simply not be allowed to break
> the law of the land. If they did they would be tried, convicted and do
> time -- like Martha Stewart did.
I'm extremely dubious that anyone would do time. It's possible, but
a more likely scenario would be fines or federal marshals.
Deadrat
>
> Dylan
>
Dylan
Richard McBane wrote:
> Cyde Weys wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Benjamin Robert McIlwain? Boring.
> > Cyde Weys McIlwain? Hell yeah!
> >
> >
> >>Mcllwain sounds very Welsh. Maybe Irish. Celtic at any rate. I'm
> >>Welsh, named Dylan Carmarthen. Just kidding, though I really am part
> >>Welsh. I understand my ancestors were coal thieves who were expatriated
> >>to Massachusetts' shores in 1660.
> >
> >
> > Scotch-Irish, actually. Either the Scotch were occupying the Irish or
> > the Irish were occupying the Scotch (I forget which) after a war, but
> > they evidently didn't do a good job, since they just ended up merging,
> > getting married, having babies, etc. The McIlwain clan came out of
> > that. I went to Ireland a few years ago and we looked up the McIlwains
> > there -- some were spelled McElwaine, MacIlwain, McIlvaine, whatever.
> > Still the same people, since the only thing at issue is the imperfect
> > romanization from the original .. what, Gaelic?
>
> There was a bit of migration back and forth between the Scots and Irish.
> A lot of Scots were settled in Northern Ireland by the british. By
> the way, Scotch is a drink,
So's Irish, Irish whiskey, Irish coffee. Erin go braugh! But,
considering some of those Irish lookers, Erin go braughless! as well.
Earle Jones
"Dylan" <desertmou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Richard McBane wrote:
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Benjamin Robert McIlwain? Boring.
> > > Cyde Weys McIlwain? Hell yeah!
> > >
> > >
> > >>Mcllwain sounds very Welsh. Maybe Irish. Celtic at any rate. I'm
> > >>Welsh, named Dylan Carmarthen. Just kidding, though I really am part
> > >>Welsh. I understand my ancestors were coal thieves who were expatriated
> > >>to Massachusetts' shores in 1660.
*
A good Welshlady told me that the five-letter names are generally
Welsh: Jones, Davis, Keith, Lloyd, etc.
earle (Jones)
*
John Wilkins
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
Earle Jones
John Wilkins <jo...@wilkins.id.au> wrote:
> Earle Jones wrote:
> > In article <1131670988.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Dylan" <desertmou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Richard McBane wrote:
> >>
> >>>Cyde Weys wrote:
> >>><snip>
> >>>
> >>>>Benjamin Robert McIlwain? Boring.
> >>>>Cyde Weys McIlwain? Hell yeah!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>Mcllwain sounds very Welsh. Maybe Irish. Celtic at any rate. I'm
> >>>>>Welsh, named Dylan Carmarthen. Just kidding, though I really am part
> >>>>>Welsh. I understand my ancestors were coal thieves who were expatriated
> >>>>>to Massachusetts' shores in 1660.
> >
> >
> > *
> > A good Welshlady told me that the five-letter names are generally
> > Welsh: Jones, Davis, Keith, Lloyd, etc.
> >
> > earle (Jones)
> > *
> >
> My friend Malte will be interested in that factoid...
*
Tell friend Malte to ask my friend Heinz about it.
earle
*
(My friends Hiroyuki Honda and Lesley Franz also don't go along with
it.)
Ernest Major
Earle Jones <earle...@comcast.net> writes
--
alias Ernest Major
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005