Yes, for lawyers and judges, it is. For scientists, though, it is not. Can you imagine scientists having to rely on ACLU legal bildge to prop up their results?
Your fav federal judge in that same judgment also presumed the authority to falsify a religious belief. Was he relying on a well-written ACLU brief when he did that, too? I guess if you don't mind philospher/king/judges dictating what science is you won't mind if they dictate theology, too.
Cordially,
Yes, for lawyers and judges, it is. For scientists, though, it is not. Can you imagine scientists having to rely on ACLU legal bildge to prop up their results?
Your fav federal judge in that same judgment also presumed the authority to falsify a religious belief. Was he relying on a well-written ACLU brief when he did that, too? I guess if you don’t mind philospher/king/judges dictating what science is you won’t mind if they dictate theology, too.
Yes, but it’s a judge we are talking about. The ACLU brief was a distilation of scientific evidence along with other briefs from the plaintiffs that were not presented by the ACLU. The defendent’s lawyers also put forward briefs based on what they consider passes for scientific evidence. Both were quoted from.
The judges’ finding was based on that together with the mountain of evidence presented during 40 days of trial and the pre-trail depostions from all parties. The same that passes in courts across the land every day.
Seems to me that people define an activist judge as one who comes to a different conclusion than they hope for, so it’s no surprise that you’re trying to push that angle. However, Jones is a Republican and was a Bush appointee so you’ll need to come up with something better than whining and distorting everyday procedures to get that one to fly.
All the best.