Nope, that's how it works. I've been following SCO v. IBM for quite a while, and I read all of the court documents. I often see the winner of a motion have his words in the order verbatim -- that is when the judge doesn't just ask the winner to write the whole order in the first place. In any case, the judge ipso facto accepts the winning side's arguments, so the judge can reword the winning arguments in his decision, or simply use those convincing arguments verbatim.
The Discovery Institute's lawyers know this, and John West, their VP of legal affairs quoted in this, definitely knows. They're just putting this out to curry public favor among those who know nothing about how the courts work (obviously many, given the posts here) by portraying themselves as the victim of an unscrupulous judge.
Unfortunately, their defamatory spin probably doesn't constitute libel since their claims are technically true.
Never, ever let a thing like being 'technically true' stand in the way of a good opinion.
Hmm. I guess I'll have to take your word for it. Thanks.
"The Discovery Institute's lawyers know this, and John West, their VP of legal affairs quoted in this, definitely knows. They're just putting this out to curry public favor among those who know nothing about how the courts work...."
This may be so. However, it still doesn't mitigate that the judge was hailed as "brilliant" that handed down the decision as if it was his work. If indeed he did just use someone else's work, how did that make him brillant? I remember him being lauded as a really great thinker...well if what was written was the product of a "great thinker", it wasn't the judge. So, it is good that this has come out, and equally good that the process has been revealed. It makes me take an even dimmer view of this judge and the publicity this story received.