Heinlein Friday on Thursday: Judge Jones (M.D. Pa.)
I preempt (preemptively!) this week's Heinlein Friday, the recurring examination of the fiction of Robert Heinlein through a legal lens, to bring you...
Speech Report Thursday! Okay, that's a weak title. Let's just call it Heinlein Friday on Thursday (HF on Thu).
The reason for this unusual (and heretofore unprecedented) interruption in the Normal Series of Things is that I bring you a firsthand report on a speech by famed ("conservative, Republican, Bush-appointee") U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, known far and wide as the "Intelligent Design Judge," because of his role in overseeing the bench trial (no jury) of the Katzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.
If you need background, the Wikipedia page on Katzmiller should have all you'd ever need. I mean, it is extensive. Readable, too.
Why is Judge Jones now a touring celebrity? In part, it's because of the enemies he has made - and what he has chosen to do about it. And that will, in due course, bring us full circle, to my reason for making this Speech Report a HF on Thurs.
Judge Jones' speech
Site: Conference Center, the Wanamaker Building (Emporis link, images, the Man Himself, John Wanamaker)
Invitation from: Judge Denis P. Cohen (although he says the idea originated with his co-chair) of the Professional Responsibility Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association.
Date and time: Wednesday, July 19th, at lunchtime.
Subject (as freely interpreted by me): The Role of Judges (and why Civic Education in this country needs help)
His honor thanked us for our welcome, and hoped he would give us some food for thought. He opened with a brief description of his recent (and evanescent) fame. He has received at least one death threat, as Judge Cohen noted in his introduction, but has also been receiving wide recognition and a great opportunity to speak about the topics of his speech. He disclaimed any intention of engaging in post-hoc analysis of
- the trial
- Intelligent Design, or
- his opinion
all of which he believes speak essentially for themselves.
He did noted in good humor that although judges mainly seek to be affirmed on appeal, should it come to that, he's one of the few judges whose trial opinions have been affirmed... by the Vatican. [See, e.g., MayerBlog, here: "Significantly, even the Vatican – whose hostility to science when it appears to conflict with religious dogma is well-known in Western history (consider, for example, the prosecution of Galileo by the Inquisition, for his 'heresies') – has recently recognized that intelligent design is not a science."]
Judge Jones issued a call to arms. He asked that judges, and lawyers, step up. The public level of understanding of basic civics, of the structure and nature of government in this country, of the purpose and practice of law and judging, is abysmal - and I'm not going to argue. A recent poll (avoid recent polls!) said that nearly 3/4ths of a recent sampling of 100,000 high school students had either no opinion regarding, or took for granted, their First Amendment rights.
That's bad, no matter how invalid the actual result might be. The fact remains that there's anyone out there who isn't exercised about the idea that the First Amendment is constantly under siege; that the powerful seek to stifle the voice of the powerless; that newspapers exist not at the suffrance but despite the active antagonism of monied and politically powerful interests (although they are themselves monied and powerful...).
Judge Jones's point is that we don't know what our liberties are, nor why they should be that way.
Judge Jones also cited the reaction of the punditry to his case. They're entitled to free speech, he argued, but in the absence of adequate education in civics and theory of government, the public is liable to be "whipsawed" - and whipped into a frenzy by people of ill will.
And what about those ill-willers?
Judge Jones noted what an honor it was to be called "fascist" by Bill O'Reilly; to be deemed "arrogant" by the Reverend, Pat Robertson; and to be described as "sticking a knife in the back" of those that brung him to the dance, by one Phyllis Schlafly.
His Honor also commented at some length about the abominable Ann Coulter's abominable new book, in which she takes time out, not to excoriate the law of the Katzmiller decision, but to engage in a prolonged ad hominem attack on those who support the result and on the Judge who penned it. He noted that she (accusations paraphrased, since it's my recollection of his quotation or perhaps paraphrase)
(Bravo, Ann, bravo. You failed to mention the Lemon test (I'm sure you hate it, your idol Scalia hates it too), or the endorsement test (that awful Woman, Sandra Day O'Connor invented it - too bad she's more famous, wise, and beloved than you - I hope her next book does better than yours, as well), which are the governing tests that a judge must use, or be reversed, when analyzing a claim under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. You also lowered the discourse, Ann. Way to go. Twit. Well, I've already mentioned Ann in HF before. Twice. That's quite enough about her.)
Judge Jones argued on three interrelated themes
- Judges perform their duties in a "workmanlike" way (with a hattip to Judge M. Rendell (3d Cir.) who used the word as well)
- Judges are bound by precedent, must obey the rule of law, and do not do their jobs in an ad-hoc fashion, constrained only by their own wishes, and by putting a finger to the wind of public opinion to see which way it blows
- Better education, of the public and the media, would help preserve judicial independence and respect for the rule of law. Here, the comment was that we (as the legal profession) should put a face on the Judiciary, and answer critics.
On the education front, as noted above, he emphasized civics. He called for better government classes. And he noted that history is important; although the public is "yearning" to have a reasoned public debate, they are too likely to believe the last hysterical pundit they heard. "Civic Stupidity" is a term he used.
And that, finally, brings us to Heinlein.
Judge Jones noted that if you don't know your history, "You're gonna get rolled."
This echoed Heinlein's statement about knowledge.
That is, if you can't count (or do some serious math), you have to take things on faith. If you don't speak the language, you're a provincial ignoramus who doesn't even know their own language, let alone what almost everyone else speaks (that is, "something else"). And if you don't know history, it's not just that you are bound to repeat it; you are doomed to fail to learn from the grand mistakes of the past.
You are doomed to be historyless - to lack identity, self-knowledge, a basic understanding of what even is. If you don't know when World War II was, give or take, how can you understand what Germany is like, and why Japanese-U.S. relations are the way they are, and why we are scared of WMDs? You can't pick this stuff up by watching all-news networks. You have to actually study, read, or learn things.
Same with math, and with languages. Translations aren't enough. If you can't even figure out how your taxes are calculated, you're going to get rolled. If you take their word for it that the scary foreign leader is saying "We will bury you!" rather than what he actually was implying ("We will outlast you!"). Math and foreign languages are the way you interact with the real world. History is the context into which all facts must fit - because if it's not accurate history, it's not about the real world, about the facts. It may be important - may be culture, society, shared beliefs, faith, morality, or an entertaining story (Superman!), but it's not history.
So Judge Jones, like the Dean of SF / Grandmaster himself, is urging us to Do Something - fight back ignorance. Encourage civic understanding. If you're a lawyer, go into a classroom. If you're a judge and your ruling (or integrity, or impartiality) are questioned and there's a teachable moment, don't remain silent.
The Old Way, Judge Jones said, was that judges would issue their opinions and then "batten down the hatches," and wait for it to be over. Jones, while denying he makes his decisions with that finger in the air, is a consumer of the media. And as such, he wants to fight the impulse. When you have an impulse to speak up, he suggests, speak up. Speak out. Within the confines of ethical rules for judges, take a stand against the pervasive, and perverse, rantings of the punditry. "We did not check *all* our First Amendment rights at the chamber door" when we became judges, he notes, paraphrasing the language from - is it Tinker, or Hazelwood? Too tired to remember. Hopefully one of those pages says.
And since he has a bully pulpit, he is taking a stand against the "deliberate inaccuracies," "cartoonish" and "outlandish" portrayals of law by Ann Coulter and others, foisted on an uninformed, ill-educated public.
Two last notes on his speech:
Judge Jones says his greatest regret about the trial is not allowing cameras in the courtroom - because the lawyering was so superb, so unparalleled, and you can't just tell someone to read about the case - "you had to be there." It would have been an outstanding civics lesson, he believes.
And, he favors civility between lawyers. The "knife fights over discovery," and "flaming arrows back and forth," he treats as he would a childish tantrum. A time out, and zero tolerance.
And that's it for Heinlein (Thursday)! Stop back next week, when we return to our regularly scheduled examination of science fiction.
Speech Report Thursday! Okay, that's a weak title. Let's just call it Heinlein Friday on Thursday (HF on Thu).
The reason for this unusual (and heretofore unprecedented) interruption in the Normal Series of Things is that I bring you a firsthand report on a speech by famed ("conservative, Republican, Bush-appointee") U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, known far and wide as the "Intelligent Design Judge," because of his role in overseeing the bench trial (no jury) of the Katzmiller v. Dover Area School District case.
If you need background, the Wikipedia page on Katzmiller should have all you'd ever need. I mean, it is extensive. Readable, too.
Why is Judge Jones now a touring celebrity? In part, it's because of the enemies he has made - and what he has chosen to do about it. And that will, in due course, bring us full circle, to my reason for making this Speech Report a HF on Thurs.
Judge Jones' speech
Site: Conference Center, the Wanamaker Building (Emporis link, images, the Man Himself, John Wanamaker)
Invitation from: Judge Denis P. Cohen (although he says the idea originated with his co-chair) of the Professional Responsibility Committee of the Philadelphia Bar Association.
Date and time: Wednesday, July 19th, at lunchtime.
Subject (as freely interpreted by me): The Role of Judges (and why Civic Education in this country needs help)
His honor thanked us for our welcome, and hoped he would give us some food for thought. He opened with a brief description of his recent (and evanescent) fame. He has received at least one death threat, as Judge Cohen noted in his introduction, but has also been receiving wide recognition and a great opportunity to speak about the topics of his speech. He disclaimed any intention of engaging in post-hoc analysis of
- the trial
- Intelligent Design, or
- his opinion
all of which he believes speak essentially for themselves.
He did noted in good humor that although judges mainly seek to be affirmed on appeal, should it come to that, he's one of the few judges whose trial opinions have been affirmed... by the Vatican. [See, e.g., MayerBlog, here: "Significantly, even the Vatican – whose hostility to science when it appears to conflict with religious dogma is well-known in Western history (consider, for example, the prosecution of Galileo by the Inquisition, for his 'heresies') – has recently recognized that intelligent design is not a science."]
Judge Jones issued a call to arms. He asked that judges, and lawyers, step up. The public level of understanding of basic civics, of the structure and nature of government in this country, of the purpose and practice of law and judging, is abysmal - and I'm not going to argue. A recent poll (avoid recent polls!) said that nearly 3/4ths of a recent sampling of 100,000 high school students had either no opinion regarding, or took for granted, their First Amendment rights.
That's bad, no matter how invalid the actual result might be. The fact remains that there's anyone out there who isn't exercised about the idea that the First Amendment is constantly under siege; that the powerful seek to stifle the voice of the powerless; that newspapers exist not at the suffrance but despite the active antagonism of monied and politically powerful interests (although they are themselves monied and powerful...).
Judge Jones's point is that we don't know what our liberties are, nor why they should be that way.
Judge Jones also cited the reaction of the punditry to his case. They're entitled to free speech, he argued, but in the absence of adequate education in civics and theory of government, the public is liable to be "whipsawed" - and whipped into a frenzy by people of ill will.
And what about those ill-willers?
Judge Jones noted what an honor it was to be called "fascist" by Bill O'Reilly; to be deemed "arrogant" by the Reverend, Pat Robertson; and to be described as "sticking a knife in the back" of those that brung him to the dance, by one Phyllis Schlafly.
His Honor also commented at some length about the abominable Ann Coulter's abominable new book, in which she takes time out, not to excoriate the law of the Katzmiller decision, but to engage in a prolonged ad hominem attack on those who support the result and on the Judge who penned it. He noted that she (accusations paraphrased, since it's my recollection of his quotation or perhaps paraphrase)
- called him a 'hack judge'
- called him a bastard Joe Wilson who merely "hasn't posed in a Jaguar outside the White House" - yet
- accused him of being as good an expert on the requirements of the First Amendment as Harriet Myers
(Bravo, Ann, bravo. You failed to mention the Lemon test (I'm sure you hate it, your idol Scalia hates it too), or the endorsement test (that awful Woman, Sandra Day O'Connor invented it - too bad she's more famous, wise, and beloved than you - I hope her next book does better than yours, as well), which are the governing tests that a judge must use, or be reversed, when analyzing a claim under the establishment clause of the First Amendment. You also lowered the discourse, Ann. Way to go. Twit. Well, I've already mentioned Ann in HF before. Twice. That's quite enough about her.)
Judge Jones argued on three interrelated themes
- Judges perform their duties in a "workmanlike" way (with a hattip to Judge M. Rendell (3d Cir.) who used the word as well)
- Judges are bound by precedent, must obey the rule of law, and do not do their jobs in an ad-hoc fashion, constrained only by their own wishes, and by putting a finger to the wind of public opinion to see which way it blows
- Better education, of the public and the media, would help preserve judicial independence and respect for the rule of law. Here, the comment was that we (as the legal profession) should put a face on the Judiciary, and answer critics.
On the education front, as noted above, he emphasized civics. He called for better government classes. And he noted that history is important; although the public is "yearning" to have a reasoned public debate, they are too likely to believe the last hysterical pundit they heard. "Civic Stupidity" is a term he used.
And that, finally, brings us to Heinlein.
Judge Jones noted that if you don't know your history, "You're gonna get rolled."
This echoed Heinlein's statement about knowledge.
The three-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots.
That is, if you can't count (or do some serious math), you have to take things on faith. If you don't speak the language, you're a provincial ignoramus who doesn't even know their own language, let alone what almost everyone else speaks (that is, "something else"). And if you don't know history, it's not just that you are bound to repeat it; you are doomed to fail to learn from the grand mistakes of the past.
You are doomed to be historyless - to lack identity, self-knowledge, a basic understanding of what even is. If you don't know when World War II was, give or take, how can you understand what Germany is like, and why Japanese-U.S. relations are the way they are, and why we are scared of WMDs? You can't pick this stuff up by watching all-news networks. You have to actually study, read, or learn things.
Same with math, and with languages. Translations aren't enough. If you can't even figure out how your taxes are calculated, you're going to get rolled. If you take their word for it that the scary foreign leader is saying "We will bury you!" rather than what he actually was implying ("We will outlast you!"). Math and foreign languages are the way you interact with the real world. History is the context into which all facts must fit - because if it's not accurate history, it's not about the real world, about the facts. It may be important - may be culture, society, shared beliefs, faith, morality, or an entertaining story (Superman!), but it's not history.
So Judge Jones, like the Dean of SF / Grandmaster himself, is urging us to Do Something - fight back ignorance. Encourage civic understanding. If you're a lawyer, go into a classroom. If you're a judge and your ruling (or integrity, or impartiality) are questioned and there's a teachable moment, don't remain silent.
The Old Way, Judge Jones said, was that judges would issue their opinions and then "batten down the hatches," and wait for it to be over. Jones, while denying he makes his decisions with that finger in the air, is a consumer of the media. And as such, he wants to fight the impulse. When you have an impulse to speak up, he suggests, speak up. Speak out. Within the confines of ethical rules for judges, take a stand against the pervasive, and perverse, rantings of the punditry. "We did not check *all* our First Amendment rights at the chamber door" when we became judges, he notes, paraphrasing the language from - is it Tinker, or Hazelwood? Too tired to remember. Hopefully one of those pages says.
And since he has a bully pulpit, he is taking a stand against the "deliberate inaccuracies," "cartoonish" and "outlandish" portrayals of law by Ann Coulter and others, foisted on an uninformed, ill-educated public.
Two last notes on his speech:
Judge Jones says his greatest regret about the trial is not allowing cameras in the courtroom - because the lawyering was so superb, so unparalleled, and you can't just tell someone to read about the case - "you had to be there." It would have been an outstanding civics lesson, he believes.
And, he favors civility between lawyers. The "knife fights over discovery," and "flaming arrows back and forth," he treats as he would a childish tantrum. A time out, and zero tolerance.
And that's it for Heinlein (Thursday)! Stop back next week, when we return to our regularly scheduled examination of science fiction.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
- Heinlein Friday: Gender and Change
- HF: Inventions
- Heinlein Friday on Thursday: Judge Jones (M.D. Pa.)
- Heinlein Friday: Sci Fi Crime...
- Heinlein Friday: Lawyers Beyond Stereotypes
- Heinlein Friday: Courts
- New recurring feature: Heinlein Fridays