Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CobaltBlue
No matter how bad the defense wanted the case, without a prosecutor, no prosecution.

Did you read the story on my link? Herbert and Sue Hicks, two local attorneys and friends of Scopes, agreed to prosecute.

Again, you are projecting. I am not irked, upset, or emotionally attached to the trial in any fashion. I merely am repeating what seems to be factual material. We have had a similar trial(show trial) recently. Michael Newdow lost because of his attempt at a show trial. What is disturbing, in this case, is that it took the Supreme Court to decide a simple matter of legal standing.

35 posted on 07/06/2004 10:39:19 PM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies ]


To: AndrewC

I think the phrase you are looking for, the mot juste, is "test case," not "show trial." "Show trial" implies that nothing was at stake. "Test case" means someone decides to test the law.

At any rate, Bryan is the one who set the case into motion. He was the one who promoted the law that was passed prohibiting teaching of evolution.


36 posted on 07/06/2004 11:15:59 PM PDT by CobaltBlue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson