That was then... you know the rest

Ed over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars takes on Roddy Bullock, head of the ID Network of Ohio, and his attack on Judge Jones (of Kitzmiller). Along the way he highlights a common ID tactic: lie about your opponent? No (though that is common, and adressed). Present opinion as fact? No (though ditto). Present ignorance as knowledge? Ditto (and ditto).

The one I'm referring to is (and this tactic isn't confined to ID supporters; the administration uses it a lot in talking about Iraq, for instance): Change your story and deny you ever said what you said first.

And now the attacks on the character of Judge Jones begin:

All judges face difficult decisions, and all judges make bad decisions. But the aftermath of the Dover litigation has shown that in this case it seems U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones, III found a chance to push the limits of judicial restraint for a once-in-a-lifetime chance at history-making. Like a present day Clarence Darrow, he recognized the chance for media-driven immortality--the lights, the cameras, the high-powered attorneys, even Charles Darwin's great-great-grandson was at his trial.

This is a pure ad hominem. It has nothing at all to do with the validity of his ruling, it's purely a conclusionary attack based upon a psychological analysis of the judge that Bullock has absolutely no way of supporting. He cannot possibly know Judge Jones' motivations for he is not inside Jones' head. He can offer no actual evidence for his claim, merely his own speculation and supposition. And convenient supposition it is, of course; it allows Bullock to dismiss the ruling without actually bothering to make any legal arguments.

Worse yet, his suppositions actually conflict with reality:

Dispensing with subtlety or nuance, in the opinion of Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District Judge Jones seemed determined to single-handedly win the culture war based on a set of facts suitable only for a skirmish. Knowing his scolding of a few religious folk would make him a darling to those he clearly holds in higher esteem, he took great delight in detailing the "breathtaking inanity" of the local school board.

Let's think about this for a moment. One thing we can say with reasonable certainty is that by ruling the way he did, Judge Jones pretty much ended any chance of moving up on the Federal bench. His ruling went squarely against the positions of those who put him in his job in the first place, namely Rick Santorum and George W. Bush. Indeed, more than one ID advocate boasted before the trial ever started that this worked in their favor, that Judge Jones would not alienate his political benefactors by ruling against them because it would destroy his chance at greater glory on a higher court. Here's the famous DaveScot quote from before the trial took place:

Judge John E. Jones on the other hand is a good old boy brought up through the conservative ranks. He was state attorney for D.A.R.E, an Assistant Scout Master with extensively involved with local and national Boy Scouts of America, political buddy of Governor Tom Ridge (who in turn is deep in George W. Bush's circle of power), and finally was appointed by GW hisself. Senator Rick Santorum is a Pennsylvanian in the same circles (author of the "Santorum Language" that encourages schools to teach the controversy) and last but far from least, George W. Bush hisself drove a stake in the ground saying teach the controversy. Unless Judge Jones wants to cut his career off at the knees he isn't going to rule against the wishes of his political allies.

Other ID advocates pointed to the fact that Judge Jones was a churchgoing conservative as evidence that he would rule in their favor. But the moment he ruled against them, suddenly he was transformed into a liberal "judicial activist" who was sucking up to the ACLU and beholden to liberal special interests. I find that absolutely hilarious, and all the more because of how shameless they were about changing their tune so rapidly. All of this, of course, is nothing more than convenient special pleading on their part. It's what they have to say. It can't be that they simply lost the arguments in court, of course; it simply must be the result of bias, nepotism and intrigue. It's all quite silly.

Read the whole thing if you want to see an ably done fisking of a deserving target.