[allmendream]

How often do you suppose a judge includes the arguments of the lawyers of the prevailing side in his decision?

If the judge was convinced by the I.D. testimony and ruled that it was Science and included the arguments of the defense in his decision, would that make him not ‘cometent’ enough to think for himself?

Your argument has scant basis in fact, no basis in law, and is entirely partisan based upon the outcome you think the judge should have arrived at because it was the outcome you desired.

Your side lost, now it is all over but the crying.

So cry baby cry, make your momma sigh.

[jwalsh07]

If the judge was convinced by the I.D. testimony and ruled that it was Science and included the arguments of the defense in his decision, would that make him not ‘cometent’ enough to think for himself?

The "judge" is not qualified to rule on what is science and what isn't science. He is no more qualified to decide that ID isn't science than courts are qualified to hold that CO2 is a pollutant which is exactly what a majority of the SCOTUS held.

The "judge" overeached and because he overeached you hold him as an exemplar of judicial excellence when in fact he's an activist masquerading as a scientist.

Pretty funny actually.