simian

Bush has commented himself on his lack of intellectual acchievement. On the one hand, I think the judge probably should not sink to commenting on irrelevant items (congressional attention span, presidental intellect), on the other I would probably would have responded far less civily than he did. I watched and listened to quite a bit of criticism of the decision in the pledge case. Not once did I hear a constitutional scholar or expert. Lots of Falwell types, some others. NOBODY I SAW/HEARD commented on the facts in the case, or on the opinion written. It was all god-this and god-that, not "this decision was wrong in the following way". In short, it came across to me as "to hell with the Constitution, facts, and reality, my faith is so weak, I need the government to endorse it, and to force those who do not believe as I do to endorse it or expose themselves to threats of violence."

Simian

PopeInTheWoods

Also trag, I guess Shrubya and the bible study group know as Congress didn't have an agenda in their vitriolic, emotional, unsubstantiated attacks on Judge Goodwin.

Yes, I just did a bit of a tu quoque in defense of Goodwin. But trag, is there anywhere in the text of Goodwin's decision where you can discern an agenda? Here comes my ad hom, with a strawman thrown in to boot: You're just like the godbot politicos and talking heads in ridiculing Goodwin because you're unable to muster any legal or logical arguments against his decision. You assign to him insidious motives because that enables you simply to ignore the ruling rather than attempt to use evidence to refute it. So I ask:

Legally, why is this decision incorrect?

Andy

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: PopeInTheWoods ]</p>

Berenger Sauniere

Sure he does, it's called upholding the Constitution agenda.

Shadowy Man

It was good to read this. I was worried that the
Judge would be feeling the pressure, but apparently he's coping really well with it.

Jobar

Newdow and Goodwin- my heroes!

Reverend Mykeru

tragic_pizza
Darwin's Finch:
Just a little correction here: In the Republican nomination debates Bush did not say Jesus was his favorite Philosopher. Rather, when all the Candidates were asked who was their favorite POLITICAL PHILOSOPHER, of the Santayana, Locke variety, Bush answered "Jesus", which makes him into even more of a pandering chuckle-head.

Goodwin:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

[ July 02, 2002: Message edited by: Reverend Mykeru ]</p>

Darwin's Finch

Rev. Mykeru: True enough, it was "political philosopher." However, if the question had concerned Bush's favorite epistemologist (assuming he would know what the word means), I suspect he would have answered the same way. After all, Jesus did change his heart, and we all know that born-again types love the "I'm-off-the-sauce-and-feeling-much-better-so-it-must-be-true" style of reasoning.

tragic_pizza

I never, at any point, said that this decision was incorrect.

I merely observed that the judge making said decision was, like you, predisposed to speaking mindless Democratese.

Yup, that was my ad hom, resulting from your gleeful abandon at putting words in my mouth. I will thank you to keep your comments regarding my posts to at least a passing relationship with what I actually posted.

tragic_pizza

Surely upholding said Constitution can be achieved without doing the ad-hom dance on Bush?

Is his decision sound enough to stand upon its own merits, or is it that he needs attention like his "rivals" on the spin trail?

Toto

Luckily for the public perception, the judge was a Nixon appointee, a veteran, and a rural landholder.

tragic, not only have you avoided the issue of any legal problem in the opinion, but you have failed to explain how referring to Bush as not a "deep thinker" is anything other than the unvarnished truth.