One of the joys of procrastination is that sometimes if you wait long enough, someone else really will take care of things. I mention that because Ed Brayton just did a good job [dismantling](http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/11/luskin_flogs_the_judicial_acti.php) Casey Luskin's [latest whine](http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/judge_jones_admits_the_activis.html) about how big bad Judge Jones was such a nasty judicial activist for daring to issue a ruling in the Dover, PA Intelligent Design case that addressed the question of whether or not ID is good science. I was planning a long and detailed post on the same thing, but now all that I have to do is highlight one point that Ed didn't make in his post.
As Ed points out, there were a number of reasons for Jones to rule on that point. For starters, he had to look at that if he wanted to handle the case in front of him the same way that the Supreme Court handled its last creationism case. (That's called following precedent.) He also needed to look at that point in order to apply the test commonly used by the Federal Courts when they look at Establishment Clause cases. (That's also called following precedent.) As Ed also notes, both the plaintiffs **_and_** the defendants specifically asked the judge to rule on that point.
What Ed doesn't mention is that the plaintiffs and the defendants were not the only ones who asked Judge Jones to rule on whether or not Intelligent Design is good science:
[Read more (at The Questionable Authority, where comments may be left):](http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/11/the_discovery_institute_casey.php)