The Cobb County decision is out

_{William Dembski

May 25, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The opinion has been issued (it’s been described as a “mess” — a remand for fact-finding). Go here:
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/todaysops.php.

Comments

The following disclaimer sticker should be attached to all copies of Vol. 390 of the 2nd Edition of the Federal Supplement: This book contains material on a court decision about Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers. This decision is a theory, not a fact, regarding the existence of a petition and a letter that are the basis for the decision. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. -------------------------- Approved by Federal Appeals Court of the 11th Circuit, May 25, 2006 ========================== LOL. My own comments about the case are at -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/sticker-shock-appeals-court-ducks.htmlLarry Fafarman_{May 27, 2006
May
05
May
27
27
2006
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT}

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf That's what is wanted.jaredl_{May 26, 2006
May
05
May
26
26
2006
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT}

And I wonder with this bodes for Judge Jones? (Granted it's a different district)tribune7_{May 26, 2006
May
05
May
26
26
2006
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

"The problems presented by a record containing significant evidentiary gaps are compounded because at least some key findings of the district court are not supported by the evidence that is contained in the record. We have concluded that the unfilled gaps in the record, coupled with the problematic nature of some of the district courtÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s factfindings, prevent proper appellate review of the merits of the important constitutional issues raised in this case." (p. 3) Hmmm, I think I can identify with this. It reminds me of the fossil record and a few of those "evidentiary gaps" that make the claim to the "fact" of molecules-to-man evolution a little questionable.sahendric_{May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

I have been trying document intensive civil cases, including constitutional law matters, for nearly 20 years. I have never heard of, much less seen, exhibit practice even remotely as shoddy as that which the court of appeals describes. Any first year lawyer knows you must mark with exhibit stickers BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGINS every document you plan to use and every document you might possibly use. The trial practice described in the opinion would earn any second year law student an Ã¢â‚¬Å“FÃ¢â‚¬Â in a trial advocacy course. I assume that both parties hired competent counsel, and I can only speculate that something is going on behind the face of this that we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know about. As for the judge basing his opinion on a document that may not exist and certainly was not entered into evidence, I hope this undeceives anyone who may have still been laboring under the impression that one must be a brilliant jurist to become a federal judge. In their more cynical moments lawyers sometimes say that a federal judge is nothing but a lawyer who knows a senator.BarryA_{May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
05:12 PM
5
05
12
PM
PDT}

"We have decided the best thing to do is remand the case to the district court in order for it to conduct new evidentiary proceedings and enter a new set of findings based on evidence in a record that we will be able to review." Back to the drawing board.idnet.com.au_{May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
03:38 PM
3
03
38
PM
PDT}

Interesting. How do they "lose" evidence like that? Sounds like things were just sort of cobbled together. (sorry)jacktone_{May 25, 2006
May
05
May
25
25
2006
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply