Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: antiRepublicrat

As is the DI's statement as far away from the perforative definition of spin as you claim Judge Jones.

Don't you guys ever see that your arguments are completely transferable?


153 posted on 12/13/2006 7:57:23 AM PST by GourmetDan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies ]


To: GourmetDan; antiRepublicrat
Don't you guys ever see that your arguments are completely transferable?

Any argument is transferable when dealing with a group for which words don't mean things.

155 posted on 12/13/2006 8:00:27 AM PST by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

To: GourmetDan
Don't you guys ever see that your arguments are completely transferable?

Absolutely not. Condensed: A judge decided a case and did a common thing when writing the decision. Notice in the article, "was taken virtually verbatim from the ACLU's proposed 'Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law' submitted to Jones..." The text was proposed, and the judge mostly accepted, as is common practice. Nothing shady here, no intent to deceive, all perfectly straightforward and on record.

Note that if you dig down into the DI's own report, you will see this little disclaimer:

Proposed “findings of fact” are prepared to assist judges in writing their opinions, and judges are certainly allowed to draw on them. Indeed, judges routinely invite lawyers to propose findings of fact in order to verify what the lawyers believe to be the key factual issues in the case. Thus, in legal circles Judge Jones’ use of the ACLU’s proposed “Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law” would not be considered “plagiarism” nor a violation of judicial ethics.
Their press release, which is all that most people will read, conveniently doesn't contain the above disclaimer. It instead tries to portray the copying as a misdeed of the judge with quotes like this:
"The new disclosure that Judge Jones' analysis of the scientific status of ID merely copied language written for him by ACLU attorneys underscores just how inappropriate this part of Kitzmiller was
That is negative spin, while the judge just did business in the open as usual. He may have copied more than is normal in a decision (as opposed to order, which as I have shown the lawyers often write in their entirety), but there is absolutely nothing legally or ethically wrong for a judge to do that.

In other words, the DI is being a sore loser and blowing a lot of hot air about nothing.

160 posted on 12/13/2006 9:01:56 AM PST by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson