If that was the judge's reasoning, then regardless of whether his ultimate ruling was legally right or wrong, he doesn't understand his job.  Judges aren't supposed to rule based one what they think is the right thing or the wrong thing.  That's what legislators do.  Judges are supposed to rule based on what the law says, regardless of whether or not the end result fits with what they think qualifies as "do[ing] the right thing".
 
Brad
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 7:10 PM
Subject: Re: New Pledge of Allegiance Case,and precential effect of Ninth Cir cuit's earlier Newdow decision

Perhaps the real explanation for the district judge's statement about being bound is that he wanted to do the right thing, but needed to place the blame elsewhere.  Even life tenure doesn't solve all problems.

Art Spitzer
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can 
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
messages to others.

Reply via email to