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

Skip to comments.

Discovery's Creation [The rise & fall of the Discovery Institute]
Seattle Weekly ^ | 01 February 2006 | Roger Downey

Posted on 02/01/2006 6:32:25 AM PST by PatrickHenry

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 401-420 next last
To: Right Wing Professor
Mind-melding for dummies?

How far down your throat does your foot go Professor?

121 posted on 02/01/2006 3:37:56 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Your "cite" wouldn't even bind other judges sitting on the same court and thats the point the guy was making.

It sure looked like he was saying the case had no future relevance whatsoever. I guess I should have been reading in the penumbras for his real meaning.

And as an aside, those supposedly useless, not-worth-the-paper-they're-written-on district court opinions have a funny and frequent way of showing up in circuit court decisions, and they seem to have a more than slightly noticeable effect on district courts as well.

I'm not sure I would take the position in front of an appellate panel that garbage from a district court is so useless it isn't even worth distinguishing. You're likely to acquire a serious case of verbal whiplash.

122 posted on 02/01/2006 3:37:57 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Senator Bedfellow
The problem that most fence sitters have is that they're not really fence sitters - ever notice how none of them ever have a list of questions for creationists to clear up?

Don't get mad at me when you see me using variants of this statement over the next 10 yrs here.
123 posted on 02/01/2006 3:38:31 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

This is a good time and place for this article - Thank You.


124 posted on 02/01/2006 3:39:17 PM PST by furball4paws (Awful Offal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Syncretic
. . . it seems appropriate to look back over the short but rocketlike rise to media celebrity of the idea called "intelligent design" and the small, dedicated band of true believers who sold the concept to the wider world.

It would be even more appropriate if the author of this article recognized that intelligent design has been a shaping principle for western science for centuries, while materialistic naturalism and its attending philosophies are not only the new kids on the block but also philosophies that fundamentally effect the interpretation and explanation of evidence.

The most offensive thing about the dogmatic proponents of Darwinian evolution and its attendant philosophies is that they employ judges to establish non-thesitic principles to the exclusion of theistic principles, when in fact our Constitution guarantees freedom of expression for all religious points of view, whether in public or in private.

125 posted on 02/01/2006 3:39:32 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

"Duh, I dunno what he said, and he dunno what he said, but we're both on the same page"


126 posted on 02/01/2006 3:39:49 PM PST by Right Wing Professor (When your mind's made up, nothing's more confusing than lots and lots and lots of facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; jwalsh07

You ignored this state that was immediately before the one you cited.

"Jones decision in the Dover case is not binding for any parties other than the ones directly involved in that case."


127 posted on 02/01/2006 3:40:19 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
I'm not sure I would take the position in front of an appellate panel that garbage from a district court is so useless it isn't even worth distinguishing. You're likely to acquire a serious case of verbal whiplash.

Hey, some of it is garbage. Nothing wrong with the truth. Citing good work is fine, citing garbage is just that, citing garbage. SCOTUS cites Euro garbage, it has no binding authority. Why do they then cite Euro garbage? Your guess is as good as mine.

128 posted on 02/01/2006 3:41:14 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
"Duh, I dunno what he said, and he dunno what he said, but we're both on the same page"

Quit while you're behind Professor.

129 posted on 02/01/2006 3:43:28 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor; plain talk; Syncretic; Ichneumon

Re: the new tactic of whining the Ichneumon's amazingly informative posts are somehow "spam:"

How about he breaks them up and posts them in 4 consecutive posts instead of one long one. That way, you creationists can digest them in small little chapters. And maybe, as a service to you, he'll put little cute pictures of puppies and kittens just to keep your interest. Cuz all that sciencey stuff iz hard!


130 posted on 02/01/2006 3:45:16 PM PST by whattajoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
I did not say Fed. Supp. cases are are not used by other courts.

That's fine. I will accept your interpretation of your words.

But (since you seem to have some familiarity with the subject) I am sure you also know that "precedent" does not necessarily mean, or equal, "binding precedent." Precision in the written word is a worthy goal.

131 posted on 02/01/2006 3:45:44 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
And as an aside, those supposedly useless, not-worth-the-paper-they're-written-on district court opinions have a funny and frequent way of showing up in circuit court decisions, and they seem to have a more than slightly noticeable effect on district courts as well.

Answer the question. is a case published in the Fed. Supp. binding on any other US District Court Judge? And specifically, is the judge's decision in the dover case binding on any other judge? You must know that it isn't.

I'm not sure I would take the position in front of an appellate panel that garbage from a district court is so useless it isn't even worth distinguishing. You're likely to acquire a serious case of verbal whiplash.

Not nearly as quickly as if an attorney stood in front of a US circuit court bench and said a case published in the Fed. Supp. was binding within the circuit.

I've read enough cases where, when reading between the lines, a Circuit Sourt will opine that the District court Judge is full of shit; and don't tell me you haven't read some cases like that.

132 posted on 02/01/2006 3:49:42 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

So your point is that because you made one only somewhat inaccurate claim in the first sentence, the wildly inaccurate claim in the second sentence must have actually been right.


133 posted on 02/01/2006 3:50:21 PM PST by Right Wing Professor (When your mind's made up, nothing's more confusing than lots and lots and lots of facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Hey, some of it is garbage.

Well, you're not going to find me arguing with that. But when its your job, you try to find respectful euphemisms to describe why the stink should stay where it is.

134 posted on 02/01/2006 3:50:52 PM PST by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Quit while you're behind Professor.

The Black Knight rides again.

135 posted on 02/01/2006 3:51:35 PM PST by Right Wing Professor (When your mind's made up, nothing's more confusing than lots and lots and lots of facts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: atlaw
In a legal sense, an opinion of a trial court judge is not a precedent. It's just the opinion of one judge.
136 posted on 02/01/2006 3:53:00 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
You made several "educated guesses".

You also predicted that it would be a "narrow ruling", which is hardly what happened. You claimed "While some of the board members had a religious motive for mentioning ID in the 'statement', the final 'statement' does not constitute a breaching of a separation of church and state." and that "While some of the board members had a religious motive for mentioning ID in the 'statement', the final 'statement' does not constitute a breaching of a separation of church and state." (which appeared to be in the context of a prediction regarding the verdict).

Oh, wait, you DID say that "I think the judge will rule very narrowly in favor of the defendants".

Nevermind...
137 posted on 02/01/2006 3:53:38 PM PST by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor

Both sentences are accurate and correct.


138 posted on 02/01/2006 3:54:24 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
The Black Knight rides again.

Better to sit atop the ass than be the ass, eh Professor?

139 posted on 02/01/2006 3:55:16 PM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

I did pedict it would be a narrow ruling. It obviously wasn't. I did not predict who would win.


140 posted on 02/01/2006 3:56:09 PM PST by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 401-420 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

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