I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Monday, November 26, 2007

Judge Jones nickname contest

.



Seal of Dickinson College







Looking half-asleep, Judge John E. Jones III is shown delivering his infamous "true religion" commencement speech at his alma mater, Dickinson College. In the speech, he said that his decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. He said,

. . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry.

It is ironic that Judge Jones gave this speech while standing behind the Dickinson College seal, shown above. This seal was designed by USA Founders Benjamin Rush and John Dickinson and has a picture of an open bible and the college motto, "Religion and learning, the bulwark of liberty," in Latin.

His speech showed a strong prejudice against the Dover defendants, regardless of whether or not Intelligent Design is a religious concept. He was lucky that he wasn't impeached. This appearance that Jones was prejudiced against the defendants was reinforced by other actions he took: (1) copying the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section virtually entirely from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs; and (2) giving a speech at a national executive meeting of the rabidly pro-Darwinist Anti-Defamation League (the ADL said that the Dover decision was a "victory for students" and viciously condemned a TV program that linked Social Darwinism to Hitler).

Here are some suggested nicknames for Judge Jones --
.
"Jackass" -- what Dover defendant Bill Buckingham called him on PBS NOVA's "Judgment Day"

"Liar" -- what Buckingham called him in "Monkey Girl"

"Neanderthal" -- what Pat Buchanan called him in an Internet article

"Rogue" -- what the Overwhelming Evidence website calls him -- also "wacky zany activist"

"True religion" -- from his Dickinson College commencement speech, described above

"I am not an activist judge" -- from the Dover opinion's statement denying that he is an activist judge. He later said, "People term 'activist judges' judges they don't agree with." Go figure.

"Breathtaking inanity" -- one of his Dover opinion's potshots at the defendants

"Narcissistic putz" -- what Bill Dembski called him after learning that the ID-as-science section of the Dover opinion was virtually entirely copied from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief. The name was a reference to Jones' acceptance of praise for the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section that he did not write.

"Judicial independence" -- from all the lectures he gives around the country complaining that criticism of his Dover decision infringes on his judicial independence

More ideas?

I think that it was the Dover opinion's potshots at the defendants that gave me the idea for a new court rule allowing attachment of litigants' comments to judicial opinions. That would at least level the playing field by giving litigants an equal opportunity to return judges' insults: e.g., judge: "breathtaking inanity"; litigant: "jackass"; etc.. Such a rule would also give litigants the opportunity to rebut judges' arguments (I also propose that judges be allowed to attach short comments rebutting the litigants' comments).
.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> Looking half-asleep <

In the eye of the beholder.

> In the speech, he said that his decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case was based on his notion that the Founders believed that organized religions are not "true" religions. He said,

. . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. <

You have shown time and again that you didn’t understand that statement. It is useless to try to clarify it for you.

> He was lucky that he wasn't impeached. <

For making a decision that was unpopular with the losers? Every judge would have to be impeached.

> This appearance that Jones was prejudiced against the defendants was reinforced by other actions he took: (1) copying the Dover opinion's ID-as-science section virtually entirely from the plaintiffs' opening post-trial brief while ignoring the defendants' opening post-trial brief and the plaintiffs' and defendants' answering post-trial briefs <

If you knew anything about law, you would know that it is often the case that the winning side even writes the abstract of the decision for the judges approval. There is no point in putting down the losing arguments in the decision. Then again this is to be expected since you know nothing about law.

> (the ADL said that the Dover decision was a "victory for students" and viciously condemned a TV program that linked Social Darwinism to Hitler). <

This seems to be quite reasonable.

> "Jackass"... "Liar" -- what Buckingham called him <

Buckingham, the perjurer, calls someone else a liar!

> "Neanderthal" -- what Pat Buchanan <

A religious fanatic

> the Overwhelming Evidence website calls him <

A whacko site

> "True religion" -- from his Dickinson College commencement speech <

Which you have shown that you misinterpreted, like most things.

> "I am not an activist judge" <

Which he isn’t

> He later said, "People term 'activist judges' judges they don't agree with." <

That seems obvious. Go figure.

> "Breathtaking inanity" -- one of his Dover opinion's potshots at the defendants <

A better nickname for you. Let’s use it.

> "Narcissistic putz" -- what Bill Dembski called him after learning that the ID-as-science section of the Dover opinion was virtually entirely copied from the ACLU's opening post-trial brief. <

Dembski is not that much brighter than you. He is probably a low grade moron.

> More ideas? <

Yes. Grow up!

> a new court rule allowing attachment of litigants' comments to judicial opinions. <

What a dumb idea. Put the loser’s crap in with the decision.

> That would at least level the playing field by giving litigants an equal opportunity to return judges' insults: e.g., judge: "breathtaking inanity"; litigant: "jackass"; etc.. <

That would lower the level even further.

> Such a rule would also give litigants the opportunity to rebut judges' arguments <

They can do that in the appeals court.

What about cases that are so flawed that they are laughed out of court and no opinion is necessary (Such as your own cases)? Do we really want to load up the court records with that crap?

I am getting tired of posting this stuff. I'll make a deal. Lift your ban of ViW and I will stop.

Monday, November 26, 2007 7:32:00 AM  
Anonymous Polonius said...

Let's have a Larry Fafarman nickname contest.

"Breathtaking Inanity" suggested by ViU could be the first entry. I would go for "The March Hare" due to his endless "best butter" arguments.

Monday, November 26, 2007 7:45:00 AM  
Anonymous Hector said...

> Let's have a Larry Fafarman nickname contest. <

"I'm From Mars"

"Don Quixote"

"Twilight Zone"

"Sock Puppeteer"

Monday, November 26, 2007 8:40:00 AM  
Blogger Larry Fafarman said...

>>>>> Looking half-asleep <

In the eye of the beholder. <<<<<<<

And in the eyes of Judge Jones -- his eyelids are obviously drooping.

>>>>> . . . this much is very clear. The Founders believed that true religion was not something handed down by a church or contained in a Bible, but was to be found through free, rational inquiry. <

You have shown time and again that you didn’t understand that statement. It is useless to try to clarify it for you. <<<<<<

The reason why we haven't heard a "clarification" from you, dunghill, is that my interpretation is the only possible one.

>>>>>> "Jackass"... "Liar" -- what Buckingham called him

Buckingham, the perjurer, calls someone else a liar! <<<<<<

Judge Jones, a liar, calls someone else a liar! Jones actually mentioned "separation of church and state" in the Dover opinion, even though the Supreme Court ruled in Lynch v. Donnelly that there is no such thing. Jones also falsely stated through a spokesperson that he does not publicly comment specifically about the Dover case.

>>>>>> If you knew anything about law, you would know that it is often the case that the winning side even writes the abstract of the decision for the judges approval. There is no point in putting down the losing arguments in the decision. <<<<<<<

We've been over this many times before, dunghill. With no presentation of the other post-trial briefs' arguments on the ID-as-science issue, there is no evidence that he even read those arguments -- and the ID-as-science section shows no independent thought. And his failure to present the other briefs' arguments or independent thought on the ID-as-science issue is just another piece of evidence that he was prejudiced against the defendants. Also, the Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin presented a lot of court opinions showing that one-sided copying when writing opinions is frowned upon by the courts.

>>>>>> Such a rule would also give litigants the opportunity to rebut judges' arguments <

They can do that in the appeals court. <<<<<<

Another one of your dumb ideas. The rebuttals would be far more effective when attached to the opinion! Lots more people read the opinion than read the briefs, particularly when the opinion is published (the Dover opinion was). Also, the Dover case was not appealed, so there was no chance to present rebuttals to a court. Attaching litigants' comments to judgments would also discourage judges from writing judgments without opinions, as happened to me.

>>>>>>I am getting tired of posting this stuff. I'll make a deal. Lift your ban of ViW and I will stop. <<<<<<

And I got tired of your crap a long time ago -- like after your first comment. I never banned ViW, so why don't you just stop posting comments here, damn you.

I get lots of visitors from around the USA and around the world, but it is mostly the same old bunch of trolls -- mostly you and sometimes a few others -- who disagree with my posts. How do you explain that? It is OK to disagree, but you should state reasons for disagreeing and you often do not.

Monday, November 26, 2007 9:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> And in the eyes of Judge Jones -- his eyelids are obviously drooping. <

On this planet people often blink. A photo taken during a blink will look just like that. This is the reason that professional photographers will take multiple shots even though one will appear to be set up correctly.

You also falsely claimed that a victory party was a drunken affair even though the picture you supplied showed nothing of the sort.

> The reason why we haven't heard a "clarification" from you <

Who is this "we"? Are you referring to your sock puppets? The explanations are here on this blog but you have proven that you can't read.

> my interpretation is the only possible one. <

You are clearly insane.

< Jones actually mentioned "separation of church and state" in the Dover opinion, even though the Supreme Court ruled in Lynch v. Donnelly that there is no such thing. <

You cite yet another ruling that you don't understand.

> We've been over this many times before <

And you still don't understand it, dunghill.

> The rebuttals would be far more effective when attached to the opinion! <

Another one of your dumb ideas.

> Attaching litigants' comments to judgments would also discourage judges from writing judgments without opinions, as happened to me. <

Your cases did not merit written judgements. They were faulty on the face. We have gone over this many times.

> I never banned ViW <

You have zero credibility.

> I get lots of visitors from around the USA and around the world <

Search engines randomly check all sites.

> but it is mostly the same old bunch of trolls -- mostly you and sometimes a few others -- who disagree with my posts. <

Where are the people who agree with your posts? It seems to be mostly your sock puppets.

> How do you explain that? <

How do I explain that nobody agrees with you?

> It is OK to disagree, but you should state reasons for disagreeing and you often do not. <

I almost always do but you have a strange blindness. If some argument goes against you, it hasn't been made. At the same time, you refuse to give arguments in support of your positions. When challenged, you just repeat your unsupported positions.

Monday, November 26, 2007 9:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given that I was blessed with Larry's obnoxious presence during that row over Cheri Yecke's wiki bio, I'm partial to the term, "Meathead puppeteer" as an appropriate nickname.

Monday, November 26, 2007 11:13:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home