The wingnutz are at it again, and again, and again.
The wingnutz are wetting themselves over a Discovery Institute "discovery" that last December's federal court decision in the Intelligent Design case relied heavily on the plaintiff's proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law".
Unfortunately, the Discovery Institute and its wingnut supporters either don't know how things work in Court, or think that no one else does. In other words, they are ignorant or dishonest.
Either way, they got it wrong.
You see, kids, that is what is supposed to happen.
This was a case tried without a jury -- what the grown-ups call a "bench trial". In bench trials, particularly in Federal Court, it is not only routine for the advocates to submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the court to use in it's decision -- it is required.
Thus, for example, the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (where Intelligent Design had, and lost, it's day in Court), provide as follows:
Maybe the Discovery Institute wackjobs are still smarting over the Court's smackdown of their brief. You see, the judge threw out the Discovery Institute friend of the court brief, like the garbage it was, saying that it was "clearly inappropriate", "improper", a "back-door" attempt to submit inadmissible material, "fundamentally unfair", and a violation of all of the applicable rules of court and evidence.
Sore losers. Emphasis on the losers.
The wingnutz are wetting themselves over a Discovery Institute "discovery" that last December's federal court decision in the Intelligent Design case relied heavily on the plaintiff's proposed "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law".
Unfortunately, the Discovery Institute and its wingnut supporters either don't know how things work in Court, or think that no one else does. In other words, they are ignorant or dishonest.
Either way, they got it wrong.
You see, kids, that is what is supposed to happen.
This was a case tried without a jury -- what the grown-ups call a "bench trial". In bench trials, particularly in Federal Court, it is not only routine for the advocates to submit proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to the court to use in it's decision -- it is required.
Thus, for example, the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania (where Intelligent Design had, and lost, it's day in Court), provide as follows:
LR 48.2 Civil Trials, Trial Without A Jury.Once the Court hears all of the evidence, the judge picks and chooses from the various proposed findings those which the court has decided most fairly represent the credible evidence presented, and then works them into the written decision and opinion. That's just, and merely, what the court did here.
In a civil action tried without a jury, counsel shall file requests for findings of fact and conclusions of law with the pretrial memorandum. Additional requests may be made during the trial as to matters that could not have been reasonably anticipated before trial.
Maybe the Discovery Institute wackjobs are still smarting over the Court's smackdown of their brief. You see, the judge threw out the Discovery Institute friend of the court brief, like the garbage it was, saying that it was "clearly inappropriate", "improper", a "back-door" attempt to submit inadmissible material, "fundamentally unfair", and a violation of all of the applicable rules of court and evidence.
Sore losers. Emphasis on the losers.
2 comments:
And check out an investigation of I.D. where it belongs, in an article from a paranormal investigation publication:
Why I.D. is short for "idiot"
I enjoy a good tirade against the intelligent design proponents, and as I lack the energy to dish it out, I therefore must let you know that I greatly appreciate your efforts.
("smackdown" link inop; I would like to see that)
peace - t.g.
Thanks for the link and comment. The smackdown link is working for me, but it is a PDF doc. This is the URL: http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/
OrderstrikeDIamicusbriefs.pdf
You can find it at the aclupa site (http://www.aclupa.org/), select LEGAL --> LegalDocket Scroll down to Religious Liberty and select the Dover case, then down to the Order Striking Discovery Institute Brief.
Post a Comment