Darwinists still missing the point regarding the "plagiarism" charges against Judge Jones

On Panda's Thumb, Timothy Sandefur writes,

Y’all remember how, years ago, Casey Luskin and the boys were calling Judge Jones a plagiarist because the final decision in Kitzmiller drew a lot of language from the briefs? I pointed out at the time that, well, that’s what briefs are for. Now here’s an article in Political Research Quarterly that uses software to find that even the U.S. Supreme Court draws a lot of language from the briefs filed by the parties in any particular case,

But the "plagiarism" charges against Judge Jones were not based on just the copying, but were based on the extreme one-sidedness of the copying. Larry Moran, a hardline Darwinist himself, summed it up nicely:

Any junior clerk could have copied the material in a single afternoon, making some minor changes of wording. This is not a case of picking and choosing from both sides and writing a summary that incorporates a few phrases here and there. It's wholesale copying, the order is the same and entire paragraphs are copied for 34 pages.

Ironically, Sandefur also says, "For most of us, it’s nice to know that court opinions show the judges actually read the briefs." On the contrary, the Kitzmiller opinion shows no evidence that Judge Jones actually read the ID-as-science sections of the defense briefs, because the opinion did not quote or cite those sections, directly or indirectly.

I think that a major reason for the one-sidedness in the Kitzmiller opinion was that Judge Jones felt fairly safe in ignoring the defense briefs' arguments because an appeal was not expected because of the changeover in the school board membership.