My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Evolution Weblogs Of Note

Daubert Expert Resources

Evolution Web Resources

  • Afarensis
    reality based humanoid's blog
  • Origin of Species Online
    For God's sake, read the dang thing before you proclaim any thoughts on evolution!! Now it's online at your fingertips. Go. Read. Then, pontificate if you must.
  • Talk Origins
    The master site containing the most comprehensive of evolution and anti-evolution sites and information on the web. A model example of how to really teach the controversy.

Junk Science Sites

Religous Critiques of Intelligent Design

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

« 1977 Indiana Creationist textbook case online | Main | The Discovery Institute selectively quoting. In other news, Sun rises in East. »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83456ce0969e200d834ceaed553ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Judge Jones: Lazy or Not so Lazy?:

Comments

Bill

Nice summary, Joe. Glad to see you posting again!

Great point about Thomas More saying nothing on the issue.

Larry Fafarman

In United States v. El Paso Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651 (1964), the Supreme Court said,

A trial judge's findings will stand if supported by evidence even where they are not his own work product, United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U.S. 173 , but such findings are less helpful on judicial review than those prepared by the trial judge himself. (emphasis added)

-- and --


[ Footnote 4 ] Judge J. Skelly Wright of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia recently said: "Who shall prepare the findings? Rule 52 says the court shall prepare the findings. "The court shall find the facts specially and [376 U.S. 651, 657] state separately its conclusions of law.' We all know what has happened. Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them. This has been denounced by every court of appeals save one. This is an abandonment of the duty and the trust that has been placed in the judge by these rules. It is a non-compliance with Rule 52 specifically and it betrays the primary purpose of Rule 52 - the primary purpose being that the preparation of these findings by the judge shall assist in the adjudication of the lawsuit. "I suggest to you strongly that you avoid as far as you possibly can simply signing what some lawyer puts under your nose. These lawyers, and properly so, in their zeal and advocacy and their enthusiasm are going to state the case for their side in these findings as strongly as they possibly can. When these findings get to the courts of appeals they won't be worth the paper they are written on as far as assisting the court of appeals in determining why the judge decided the case." Seminars for Newly Appointed United States District Judges (1963), p. 166.(emphasis added)

So maybe you can put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Joe  Mc   Faul

Larry needs some reading glasses.

The U.S. Supreme Court holding he has quoted:

"A trial judge's findings will stand if supported by evidence even where they are not his own work product."


He then quotes a speech by J. Skeleley Wright who criticizes this practice:

"Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them."

Now Larry, for the reading comprehension test.

Read the plaitnff's proposed Findings. Did Judge Jones sign them.

No, he did not.

Judge Skelley Wright was cricizing an entirely different practice.

Also note, why he was cricizing the practice...it makes appeals difficult. Who was Judge Skelley Wright? An Appeals Court Justice. Finally, did he say that judges could not include secitons of proposed findings?

No he did not. Did he say that judges had to re-write from scatch. No he did not.

Did he say that a trial judge who signs off on a propsoed secision with no changes commits REVERSIBLE ERROR?

uh, no he did not.

Are his comments even legally binding on Judge Jones. No they are not.

You can stop practicing law without a license, now.

Larry, what is your take on young earth creationism? You agree that Young Earth Creationsim has no scientific basis, correct?

Burmiester

Bullshit. Over 90 per cent of his opinion was lifter straight from the plaintiffs material.

There is nothing wrong with this, but quite LYING and saying Jones is some great scholar. He MANIFESTLY is NOT>he simply used the plaintiffs material.

Shit, he could have been asleep at the switch and done the same thing.

As one lawyer to another...who YA KIDDIN?

Larry Fafarman

Joe Mc Faul said,

-- He then quotes a speech by J. Skeleley Wright who criticizes this practice:
"Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them." --

What Jones did was worse than just asking the prevailing attorneys to write the opinion and then signing it. Jones gave the false impression that he was the real author of the opinion.

Keanus

The purported "analysis" of Judge Jones's decision was a MS Word word count, not a sentence to sentence comparison and the count was only on the portion that addressed the question whether ID was science of religion. If that's the legal analysis of the DI, I'd hate to see what their science (which has yet to see the light of day) research looks like. In short the DI's analysis was nonsense—and would be an embarrassment to any practicing attorney—and Joe's quick explanation is right on. The DI folks are either fools or incompetent on the facts, both in the issues Judge Jones addressed and the way in which attorneys prepare their cases and judges prepare their decisions.

Joe McFaul

Larry:

Question pending to you:

Young earth?

cut and run, cut and run.

Larry Fafarman

Keanu says --
--"The purported "analysis" of Judge Jones's decision was a MS Word word count, not a sentence to sentence comparison and the count was only on the portion that addressed the question whether ID was science of religion." --

The DI report not only gives the word count but gives many side-by-side comparisons of statements in the Dover opinion and the ACLU briefs. Also, DI focused on the ID-as-science section but said that other sections of the opinion might also have material copied from the ACLU briefs (I know that the conclusion section contains copied ACLU material).

Joe McFaul says --

-- "Larry:

Question pending to you:

Young earth?

cut and run, cut and run. " --

I didn't come here to discuss that subject, you idiot, and I am against cluttering up someone else's blog with off-topic stuff. Your insistent challenge is completely out of line.

Joe  Mc   Faul

"I am against cluttering up someone else's blog with off-topic stuff."

It's my blog. I made it on topic.

Answer or cut and run. Your choice.

Larry Fafarman

-- "I am against cluttering up someone else's blog with off-topic stuff."

It's my blog. I made it on topic. --

OK -- as I said, I did not come here to discuss that topic.

Joe  Mc Faul

Well, that topic is always topic A here.

Regardless of any scientific issue that may exist with respect to intelligent design, there is none over young earth creationism. There is no scientific support whatsoever for young earth creationism. It is not science or in any way scientific.

If a person can't find it in themselves to simply state such an uncontrovertable scientific fact, that person either has no intelectual integrity, no scietific curiosity, or too low of an IQ to discuss anything at all related to science.

Time is short--I can't discuss matters with everybody on this planet. I must invoke some method of screening out those for which conversation is useless.

YEC is one of my screening tools. It save a lot of time and effort. I also employ area 51, UFO abductions and farie apparitions as screening tools.

Larry Fafarman

--"Regardless of any scientific issue that may exist with respect to intelligent design, there is none over young earth creationism. There is no scientific support whatsoever for young earth creationism."--

There may or may not be scientific support for it -- I don't know. As I said, I did not come here to discuss that subject.

--"If a person can't find it in themselves to simply state such an uncontrovertable scientific fact, that person either has no intelectual integrity, no scietific curiosity, or too low of an IQ to discuss anything at all related to science. "--

I came here to discuss the law, not science.

Anyway, back to the original topic of this thread --

If the defendants’ arguments regarding the question of whether ID is science were really that bad, Judge Jones would have had good reason to present and rebut those arguments just for the purpose of showing how weak the defendants’ position was. Jones instead mostly or completely ignored those arguments.

Jordan Retro 8

Just as the saying goes that you are never too old to learn. I believe it. At first keeping reading all the way can enrich our leisure and knowledge. We can learn a lot from reading. Do you think so?

coach wallets

The past is gone and static. Nothing we can do will change it. The future is before us and dynamic. Everything we do will affect it.

 jordan retro 3

No one can degrade us except ourselves; that if we are worthy, no influence can defeat us. What do you think?

buy viagra

Life is something that in the universe is common, for me there is no doubt that more advance, intelligent life is out there, some may already contacted us, others probably are in other regions of the universe.

find a scentsy consultant

It's our own decision in which we can rely on.

The comments to this entry are closed.