|
Perhaps. If he had stopped at saying he
believed they lied, that would be one thing. When the judge throws in the
accusation that they were breathtakingly inane, though, that doesn't sound like
the words of a trier of fact. That sounds like somebody with an axe to
grind against the plaintiffs, and I guess the proximity of the charge of lying
to this bit of overblown rhetoric caused me to respond to them
together.
It's certainly beyond his job, though, to talk
about how breathtakingly inane the plaintiffs were. If he wants to talk
about their veracity, fine. Either they lied or they told the truth.
If he wants to talk about the merits of their arguments, fine. Either they
are right or they are wrong. But this was over the top, and if that's
restraint, then I'd hate to see what an unrestrained opinion says.
And if the lies were as plain and obvious as they
have been portrayed here as being, then it would be a sad commentary on the
appellate courts for them to need him to wax so poetic to tell them about
it.
Brad
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:15
PM
Subject: Re: Dover Intelligent-Design
Case
Is it not accurate that the trier of fact may make determinations as to
the veracity of the witnesses?
I think that, if one reads the transcript, one might be astonished at the
restraint Judge Jones used. It's one thing to deny a contested
statement, another to deny it after it's been reported separately by two
newspapers and captured on videotape.
Judge Jones was probably wise to include this statement about the
defendants' testimony, as a help for appellate courts.
Ed Darrell
Dallas
Brad M Pardee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The judge wrote, "Those who disagree with our holding will
likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have
erred as this is manifest! ly not an activist Court."
Has there ever been a Court that admitted that it WAS
activist? Is there a decision somewhere that says, "This Court is
proud to admit that it is an activist Court, and thank you for
noticing"?
Rick may be on to
something when he says, "The Bard might have said: "The judge doth protest
too much, methinks."
And maybe it's
just my untrained eye, but when I see a judge referring to the defendandts
as liars and breathtakingly inane, I find myself wondering how that is part
of his job. His job is to interpret the law, not to assess the moral
fitness of people whose arguments he did not agree with. If he thinks
they're right, say so. If he thinks they're wrong, say so. (And
if he truly believes they were lying and that this isn't just extreme
rhetorical excess, can I assume perjury charges will be forthcoming?)
The snippets posted by Ann make me seriously
doubt the judge's impartiality and temperament, and I'm not sure I'd want
him judging pecan pies at the County Fair, much less matters of serious
Constitutional import.
Brad_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
|
