World Net Daily huh?
This is extremely hyperbolic. How about giving us some facts?
I don't know anything about this case, and after reading this I still don't. I do know that there are other reasons not to respond to a motion.
Perhaps it wasn't worth doing because the motion was a minor point in a suit is that is certain to be rejected, just for one alternative explanation.
Precisely. Glad to see someone else thinking.
People have really got to start reading things with a critical eye, even stuff from CONSERVATIVE sources, and even things they WANT to believe.
In this case, it is a motion for summary judgement. Such a motion will be granted if there are no grounds for a trial. There are no grounds for a trial if there is no issue of material fact, and judgement is permitted by law. There is no need to re-assert that there are issues of material fact; and any facts in dispute must be given to the non-moving party in order to render a decision on the motion (i.e., take the government's side AS TRUE! and faced with that, conclude that the opponent wins anyway).
In some 30 years of litigation experience I have never seen the government fail to contest a summary judgment motion. Not only is this minor, it is an extremely significant breakthrough.
Please explain also how such a failure to contest by the government is something other than a fact?
The only question here is whether the assertion of the fact is true, which is a matter of public record.