What I meant was that the judge may have wanted to do the legally right thing -- as I believe he did -- but may have felt the need to seek the shelter of the 9th Circuit's previous decision to reduce the heat that would (and surely will) come his way because he did a wildly unpopular thing.
However, now that I've seen the judge's candid footnote, I agree with Anthony Picarello that he seems to have explained his own reasons pretty well.
Art Spitzer
In a message dated 9/14/05 9:20:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
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 -----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
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.
