Judge John E. "the workman" Jones III
.
In a recent TV interview, Judge John E. Jones III said,
Judge "I am not an activist judge" Jones has been criss-crossing the country giving lectures supposedly "educating" the public about how judges work but has actually been misinforming the public. Jones emphasizes the role of precedents and claims that the work of judges is "workmanlike," giving the false impression that there is only one decision that can be consistent with precedents whereas many different decisions can be consistent with precedents. Judge Jones is trying to duck criticism of his Dover decision by pretending that he was just following a set of instructions in a manual. If judges are just unskilled "workmen," then they should be paid like unskilled workmen.
In a recent TV interview, Judge John E. Jones III said,
We operate in a very workmanlike way, believe it or not. We find the facts, as we did in this case, by listening to the testimony, and then we apply well-established law to those facts. It's a sequential process that is time-tested. Every judge does it in the United States.
Judge "I am not an activist judge" Jones has been criss-crossing the country giving lectures supposedly "educating" the public about how judges work but has actually been misinforming the public. Jones emphasizes the role of precedents and claims that the work of judges is "workmanlike," giving the false impression that there is only one decision that can be consistent with precedents whereas many different decisions can be consistent with precedents. Judge Jones is trying to duck criticism of his Dover decision by pretending that he was just following a set of instructions in a manual. If judges are just unskilled "workmen," then they should be paid like unskilled workmen.
Labels: Judge Jones (new #1)
posted by Larry Fafarman | 12/06/2007 08:05:00 PM
24 Comments:
Has it occurred to you that the lack of comments on your latest crap is that it is beneath comment?
No -- but what has occurred to me is that the reason why many of my posts lack comments is that my arguments are so good that even the trolls don't try to counter them.
I think you actually believe that. You are worse off than I thought.
Here's what seems to be a seance-message from one "Charles Darwin:"
"That Larry's conjuring my ghost
From the tomb! For his blog is the most
Enchanting around.
My theory's unsound!
So I'm floating, enraged, by a post!"
For some a good laugh, go to www.expelledthemovie.com and click on PLAYGROUND. Then watch Dawkins, Hitchens, Eugenie Scott, Sam Harris...and "Great Darwin" himself, all doing the Darwin Daze Sock-Hop! Too bad P.Z. didn't make the chorus-line...but he probably can't dance.
It is heartwarming (?) to see Hollywood-style technoglitteracy placed in the service of a different type of stupidity.
Keep it up -- you'll ruin science yet!
>>>>>>>
No -- but what has occurred to me is that the reason why many of my posts lack comments is that my arguments are so good that even the trolls don't try to counter them.
<<<<<<<
What a textbook case of specious reasoning. Larry my friend, I have a magic rock that will keep away tigers that I want to sell you! I mean, look at it! I'm holding it right now and I don't see tigers anywhere. Must mean that it really works right?
You are only proving my point -- you are not trying to counter my arguments but are just making personal attacks.
> You are only proving my point -- you are not trying to counter my arguments but are just making personal attacks. <
Larry (Woogl), you seem to be describing yourself. You never counter arguments except to echo your original statements followed by personal attacks.
We see the clown braying his usual unsupported claims and misinterpretations:
> but has actually been misinforming the public. <
Unsupported!
> claims that the work of judges is "workmanlike," giving the false impression that there is only one decision that can be consistent with precedents <
That impression only exists in the mind of an idiot like Larry. Judge Jones certainly didn't imply that.
> Judge Jones is trying to duck criticism of his Dover decision by pretending that he was just following a set of instructions in a manual. <
This is not really a misinterpretation on Larrys part. It is an outright lie.
> If judges are just unskilled "workmen," <
Who says "unskilled"? The only one unskilled in law in this whole issue is Larry.
No wonder people think this blog is "non-notable" and "crappy".
Hector driveled,
>>>> Unsupported! <<<<<
Where is your support, dunghill?
>>>>>> claims that the work of judges is "workmanlike," giving the false impression that there is only one decision that can be consistent with precedents <
Judge Jones certainly didn't imply that. <<<<<<<
Your dull-witted mind is incapable of perceiving insinuation. In this context, "workmanlike" was obviously intended to imply unskilled work in which there is no flexibility in how the work is done. Here is further evidence of Jones' views on the subject, from a speech to the ADL --
In fact, I will submit to you that had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry.
Wrong. There are many other ways that he could have reasonably decided the case, e.g., he could have avoided the Lemon test and avoided the ID-as-science issue.
He also said in the ADL speech,
However, I did not have the power – and Ms. Schlafly and others fail to mention this – I did not have the power to omit utilizing those tests
Wrong -- he didn't have to use the Lemon test. Way back in 1993, Justice Scalia admitted that the Supreme Court does not always use the Lemon test:
When we wish to strike down a practice it forbids, we invoke it....when we wish to uphold a practice it forbids, we ignore it entirely -- from Concurrence in Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District, 508 U.S. 384, 398-99 (1993).
Also, Judge Jones said in a speech at Bennington College,
What all of them had in common -- all of these criticisms -- was that they omitted to note the role of precedent, how judges work, the Rule of Law. Trial judges carefully find the facts in a case and apply existing precedent as handed down by higher courts -- most notably, in this case, the Supreme Court of the United States. There was simply no attempt [in these media criticisms] to illuminate those issues or educate the public.
There were a lot of criticisms in scholarly law journals and law blogs, and a lot of those criticisms were based on precedent (see "Expert opinions on Kitzmiller" in the sidebar).
Anonymous driveled,
>>>>>> No wonder people think this blog is "non-notable" and "crappy". <<<<<
The only thing "crappy" about this blog is the lousy trolls like you who post comments here. I can't help that because of my no-censorship policy.
Hector noted,
>>>> Unsupported! <<<<<
To which Larry brayed,
> Where is your support, dunghill?<
He doesn't need support since his observation stands by itself. You made an unsupported (as usual) statement.
> In this context, "workmanlike" was obviously intended to imply unskilled work in which there is no flexibility in how the work is done. <
It is "obvious" only to a dull-witted mind such as your own. You are incapable of interpreting anything accurately, as you have repeatedly shown. It is no wonder that you live in a dream world.
> Here is further evidence of Jones' views on the subject, from a speech to the ADL <
Here is further evidence that Judge Jones ruled wisely.
> Wrong. There are many other ways that he could have reasonably decided the case, e.g., he could have avoided the Lemon test and avoided the ID-as-science issue. <
Or he could have claimed that the Earth was flat or that the IDiotic creationists did not lie. Of course none of these would be true.
He also said in the ADL speech,
> Also, Judge Jones said in a speech at Bennington College,
What all of them had in common -- all of these criticisms -- was that they omitted to note the role of precedent, how judges work, the Rule of Law. Trial judges carefully find the facts in a case and apply existing precedent as handed down by higher courts -- most notably, in this case, the Supreme Court of the United States. <
And that is what Judge Jones did. He applied the Rule of Law and applying existing precedent. You are proving our case!
> There was simply no attempt [in these media criticisms] to illuminate those issues or educate the public. <
Your dull-witted mind is incapable of perceiving insinuation. In this context, "workmanlike" was obviously intended to imply applying the rule of law and applying existing precident.
> There were a lot of criticisms in scholarly law journals <
There are almost always critcisms of every notable case in law journals.
> and law blogs <
Crappy, non-notable blogs?
> The only thing "crappy" about this blog is the lousy trolls like you who post comments here. <
The thing that makes it crappy is your bleatings and your use of personal insults when you are losing your argument, a situation that seems to always present itself.
> I can't help that because of my no-censorship policy. <
You have censored and admitted it.
You only make youself look more foolish by now claiming that you lied when you admitted censorship.
Why did you ban ViW?
>>>>> > There were a lot of criticisms in scholarly law journals <
There are almost always critcisms of every notable case in law journals. <<<<<<
I was referring to the fact that Jones only mentioned "media criticisms" -- e.g., criticisms from Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan -- and ignored the criticisms in law journal articles and law blogs.
Here again is what Jones said in his Bennington College speech:
What all of them had in common -- all of these criticisms -- was that they omitted to note the role of precedent, how judges work, the Rule of Law. Trial judges carefully find the facts in a case and apply existing precedent as handed down by higher courts -- most notably, in this case, the Supreme Court of the United States. There was simply no attempt [in these media criticisms] to illuminate those issues or educate the public.
I don't know who inserted "in these media criticisms" in brackets, but Jones was apparently talking about media criticisms.
>>>>> You have censored and admitted it. <<<<<
I have not censored anything in a long time, and I restored some of the things I censored.
The censorship was in response to extreme provocation -- like impersonating me and gossiping about my private affairs.
There is a new comment under the post UK schools drop Holocaust to satisfy Moslems .
I am posting this notice here because this blog does not list the most recent comments posted anywhere on the blog (and I wish I knew how to do it).
> I was referring to the fact that Jones only mentioned "media criticisms" -- e.g., criticisms from Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan -- and ignored the criticisms in law journal articles and law blogs. <
He also said nothing about the equally relevant ball scores. You are saying that if one addresses some criticisms, they must address them all. That is absurd.
> Jones was apparently talking about media criticisms. <
Duh! Then there was no reason for him to talk about law journal criticisms or ball scores.
> I have not censored anything in a long time, and I restored some of the things I censored. <
So you admit banning ViW?
> The censorship was in response to extreme provocation <
Like winning arguments that you could not answer.
> gossiping about my private affairs. <
You consider itemizing your legal failures or correcting your lies to be gossip. If you didn't lie in the first place there would be no need to correct them.
Larry admits to and denies censorship in the same post. Nothing is new.
>>>>>>> I was referring to the fact that Jones only mentioned "media criticisms" -- e.g., criticisms from Phyllis Schlafly and Pat Buchanan -- and ignored the criticisms in law journal articles and law blogs. <
You are saying that if one addresses some criticisms, they must address them all. That is absurd. <<<<<<<
I was looking at his reason for ignoring the criticisms in law journal articles and law blogs, dunghill. His reason was that he could not charge that those criticisms ignored precedent and the rule of law, because a lot of those criticisms were based on precedent and the rule of law. I originally said,
There were a lot of criticisms in scholarly law journals and law blogs, and a lot of those criticisms were based on precedent
You sure are dense.
> I was looking at his reason for ignoring the criticisms in law journal articles and law blogs, dunghill. <
And you were unable to determine it, although it seems obvious to the sane.
> His reason was that he could not charge that those criticisms ignored precedent and the rule of law <
Wrong, dunghill. It was because they were not relevant to the issue he was discussing.
> I originally said,... <
More mindless repetition.
You sure are dense, Woogl.
< How deep must the hole be for you to stop digging? >
Perhaps when it reaches the Moho?
There was simply no attempt [in these media criticisms] to illuminate those issues or educate the public.
< I don't know who inserted "in these media criticisms" in brackets, but Jones was apparently talking about media criticisms. >
Larry, the reasonable inference is that the only likely source of the aside, in context, was Jones. Particularly since it was so consistent with the rest of his speech. As ViU and Hector pointed out, the comments in law journals were not relevant to what he was discussing. It is sad that you do not see that.
The speech as a whole is a testament to the greatness of Jones. He is Supreme Court material. Your attempts to smear him are rather childish. Schlafly and Buchanan have unfortunately rather besmirched themselves as well in their agenda-driven blindness.
As the saying goes, don't feed the trolls. You give them satisfactory answers to their questions or arguments and they keep coming back with the same questions or arguments, like a broken record.
> You give them satisfactory answers to their questions or arguments and they keep coming back with the same questions or arguments <
How do you know what anyone would do if you gave satisfactory answers to our questions or arguments? You have never done it.
You just keep repeating your position without support, like a broken record.
Post a Comment
<< Home