Nice excuse-making there mak.
You'll have lots of company soon though as the anti-creationist Freepers will be showing up for 400 + posts thread.
Nope, that's how it works. I've been following SCO v. IBM for quite a while, and I read all of the court documents. I often see the winner of a motion have his words in the order verbatim -- that is when the judge doesn't just ask the winner to write the whole order in the first place. In any case, the judge ipso facto accepts the winning side's arguments, so the judge can reword the winning arguments in his decision, or simply use those convincing arguments verbatim.
The Discovery Institute's lawyers know this, and John West, their VP of legal affairs quoted in this, definitely knows. They're just putting this out to curry public favor among those who know nothing about how the courts work (obviously many, given the posts here) by portraying themselves as the victim of an unscrupulous judge.
Unfortunately, their defamatory spin probably doesn't constitute libel since their claims are technically true.
The point here is not that the judge took the winning lawyers' arguments. It is that he allowed himself to be praised for his great opinion, and took credit for its creation. This judge is an empty suit (robe).