Briefs are for the court to use


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, thus reaching the unremarkable conclusion that “there is a connection between the language of the parties’ briefs and the language of the opinions, which means that parties have the potential to influence the law.” For most of us, it’s nice to know that court opinions show the judges actually read the briefs. But for Luskin & Co., it’s doubtless evidence of just how huge the Darwinist plagiarist conspiracy really is.


I once had a case in which the judge lifted almost everything nearly verbatim from my brief, including, somewhat embarassingly, the argumentative point headings. What made this particularly amusing for me is that certain supervisors thought the brief had taken a dead-wrong approach, and had reamed me out for submitting it.

Man, next thing you know they’ll be complaining that both the judge and the prosecuting attorney wear boxers. Well, at least that way they wouldn’t share briefs!

In the Dover case, the judge had requested the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and law. It’s rather routine for the trial court judge to use a lot of that material in his opinion.

How dare those dangerous intellectuals know how to read and comprehend material, assess it for legal relevance and use the good stuff. {rolls eyes}

On the other hand, it might be amusing to know how often judges did that with their school/college-work (back before the days of easy internet checking of homework plagiarism).

That’s right, SEF. To quote Pastor Ray Mummert: “We’ve been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture”.

I’ve seen administrative courts where the judge just picked the brief he liked and signed it.

Nice one, there is actually some great points on this post some of my associates will find this worthwhile, will send them a link, thanks

Crazy. I mean you win the court case, so the judge uses your arguments. What will they think of next?

Casey Luskin said that? He’s an attorney. He should know that. Heck, I’ve seen decisions that WERE the brief. On the local level the winning side frequently writes the decision for the judge’s approval.

Of course, he could be one of the ‘non-practicing’ kind that are, typically, marginally qualified and don’t actually practice law in any meaningful way.

I’m sure Luskin knows exactly what briefs are for and was just lying when he accused the judge of impropriety.

On a related note, and with what might be old news …

Judge John E. Jones: From Scopes to Kitzmiller and beyond: lessons in judicial independence

Hi Casey !* Not much left in the “brief case” of tricks but straight-up BS ‘eh ?

*(yeah, everyone knows you lurk here, seriously dude, you only kid yourself)

Our opponent in one of our cases appealed partly on the basis that the judge had adopted our findings of fact and conclusions of law pretty much verbatim. You could practically hear the Court of Appeals snickering in its opinion upholding the decision.

See the earlier post on not knowing what you do not know. Yet again the creationists bloviate without any intention of learning the facts. Just like my ex-wife. Facts do not matter.

I just wanted to take a minute to say thanks for posting this. This area was on my mind recently, as a result I honestly loved this article!

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Timothy Sandefur published on November 22, 2010 2:04 PM.

Fraser River was the previous entry in this blog.

Vertebrate Paleontologists Punked by Creationist Filmmakers is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter