simian

Oh yes, Nixon appointees are known for their speaking democratese.

While I find it unfortunate the judge is responding to politicians in the same manner they treat him, I can understand it. Please note that he also criticizes Congress and the media.

In short, you are saying not claiming that anything was legally wrong in Goodwin's decision, but that the judge should not be making such comments about officials. If I read you correctly, you seem to be implying that the elected officials also should not

I agree the judge should not be making such comments, but one can not expect a person to be continuously attacked with nobody stepping up to his defense, and not to respond in kind.

Surely Bush could defend his point of view without referring to the decision as "ridiculous" or at least back up his commentary. While I agree the judge's comments are only slightly more defensable than the elected officials, I can see his being defense rather than pure attack.

Simian

PopeInTheWoods

Pah! I forgot to mention that I was deliberately putting a straw man in there as well. Good catch! I'll edit my earlier post.

Back to the original argument. You asserted that the ruling was a result of Judge Goodwin's "agenda", and offered his slam on Shrubya as evidence. I countered that he was merely responding in kind to the personal attacks on him (though on re-reading I could have made that clearer). Is that a fair summation of your position so far? Do you have any other evidence that Judge Goodwin's "agenda" is the main cause of this ruling?

Andy

tragic_pizza

That is all I was saying. Thank you.

Seems like the "deep thinker" crack was less a defense than an angry ad hom.

Bush referring to the decision as "ridiculous" was indeed wrong. The long list of politicians grandstanding for face time and positive spin, rather than examining the facts and sticking thereto, was wrong. Bubba Falwell jumping on the bandwagon was wrong, but probably as predictable as the rest of the political hyperbole.

One would hope that someone would take the high road in this mess... two wrongs, after all, do not make a right. Nor do a hundred wrongs. If the judge is indeed the injured party, then maintaining a less than argumentative air only bolsters his position.