I think it's hard to be *that* much of a toadie, even on the SC. Arguing a case for your employer is one thing; judging a precedent is another. I take heart in the fact that when things start to get really outrageous, even the most conservative judges start going "I don't THINK so!" in the face of overwhelming religious right pressure. Jones was a Bush appointee; the judge in the Shiavo case was a Goldwater conservative from everything I could find.
The Kansas case is going to have an uphill climb, for the very reasons laid out in the Dover decision. Even if they get away with redefining science, they're also going to have to overcome the lack of testing and results, the inability to articulate a theory, and the overwhelming evidence, from the Discovery Institute and others, that ID really is another form of religious creationism.
And the SC doesn't like to dirty its hands with that sort of thing. Kansas may *want* to take their case up to the Supreme Court, but actually *getting* it there is problematic. Winning even moreso, since it looks like the pendulum will at long last start swinging back left before O'Connor's seat is filled.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-12-21 03:58 pm (UTC)I think it's hard to be *that* much of a toadie, even on the SC. Arguing a case for your employer is one thing; judging a precedent is another. I take heart in the fact that when things start to get really outrageous, even the most conservative judges start going "I don't THINK so!" in the face of overwhelming religious right pressure. Jones was a Bush appointee; the judge in the Shiavo case was a Goldwater conservative from everything I could find.
The Kansas case is going to have an uphill climb, for the very reasons laid out in the Dover decision. Even if they get away with redefining science, they're also going to have to overcome the lack of testing and results, the inability to articulate a theory, and the overwhelming evidence, from the Discovery Institute and others, that ID really is another form of religious creationism.
And the SC doesn't like to dirty its hands with that sort of thing. Kansas may *want* to take their case up to the Supreme Court, but actually *getting* it there is problematic. Winning even moreso, since it looks like the pendulum will at long last start swinging back left before O'Connor's seat is filled.