Recommended Tests

I found out this guy existed today. Here are a two different biographies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_E._Jones_III Wikipedia ofc but you might think it's biased to the left so I'll also offer you the right http://conservapedia.com/John_E._Jones_III. I especially like the last sentence of the first paragraph on that last link. I'd also love to give a super-biased biography to the left but it appears like there are no communists that want him to spontaneously catch fire so I didn't find any.

What I found particularly interesting is that the guy was put in office by George W. Bush and, according to some critics, by evangelical leaders, and his most important decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) went against the obvious interests of those who got him in that position. I find it inspiring that there are some people in the judiciary system that don't base their decisions on pork barrel. Then again, you might disagree and say that he was disloyal by not supporting those who helped him before. I just wanted to know what your opinion was on the guy. Independently of if you think his ruling was in accordance with the US constitution or not, and I believe most of us are not in a position to judge if that choice was appropriate since most of us have not studied in law school, did he do the right thing by backstabbing those who got him there?

I agree with your stance on the matter zalternate, from what I have read I believe Intelligent Design to be pseudoscience and as such it should not be taught in schools no matter how much certain (religious) community leaders or parents want it to be. However, I don't want this thread to turn into a flame war between those that agree with the ruling and those who don't, I just want to see your reaction to a guy that went against what it seems is business as usual by not ruling in favor of those who got him to the top. Are there other such known instances that might go the other way perhaps? Maybe a  judge who was nominated by democrats that makes an important decision that pleases the right? I found it inspiring that such people still exist.

Heres an interesting news story on how 'The war on terror" wants to jail a lawyer for 30 years or life. Maybe some remember this altercation. A 28 month sentence to be served, finally.....

http://socialistworker.org/2009/11/20/a-fighter-for-justice

Just to point out that she should of not been a conduit for communication to a banned contact, but she is being made a scapegoat(with a life sentence, orchestrated by the G.W.Bush government) to make all the other lawyers to be afraid that the same will happen to them as well.
Part of the case involves her being monitored for a crime that she 'might' commit.  Which goes against the Constitution. So is that the reason for the light sentence? Possibly.  Since the law would seem to state that the authorities can not break the law to enforce it.
But what was she communicating? Basic trial details or what? The Government must have full documentation somewhere for all to read. Otherwise the Judge would of ruled life sentence automatically, if she were sending and receiving 'orders'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Koeltl
And interesting Judge. Friend to both sides.

More articles on the case. Some from the left and some from the right.
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Lynne+Stewart