Caldwell filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California in 2005. But her suit was dismissed in 2006 because she failed to allege that she had federal taxpayer standing, failed to sufficiently allege state taxpayer standing, and failed to establish that she suffered a concrete "injury in fact." When she appealed the decision, the appellate court's decision concluded, "Accordingly, we believe there is too slight a connection between Caldwell’s generalized grievance, and the government conduct about which she complains, to sustain her standing to proceed." Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case, a lawyer for the University of California told the Chronicle, "We believe the lower court rulings were correct, and we're glad this ends the matter."I am sure that most state universities and colleges have official positions on the general and special theories of gravity, plate tectonics and quantum mechanics. Maybe we should file suits demanding that those not be taught. Incredible. Hat tip to LGF.
This is a blog detailing the creation/evolution/ID controversy and assorted palaeontological news. I will post news here with running commentary.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
High Court Smacks Down Anti-Evolution Suit
The U.S. Supreme Court denied without hearing a suit brought against the University of California by a woman who claims that their official position that evolution ("Darwinism") and religion can be compatible constitutes a religious position and is unconstitutional. Yup, you read that right. The report on the NCSE website notes:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment