Re: Judge Jones discusses his opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover

From: Ted Davis <>
Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 08:57:17 EST

>>> "David Opderbeck" <> 02/27/06 9:57 PM >>>writes:
*I'll grant however that if we operate with a different implicit or
definition of "conservative," then we may well reach different conclusions
about how that term applies to this case.*

Fair enough. I view judicial conservatism as doing only that which is
necessary to decide a given case or controversy. That, Judge Jones did
do. Whether a party "requests" something is irrelevant. Parties
"request" all sorts of things that "conservative" judges, as I use the
regularly ignore. Courts don't exist to adjudicate political, cultural or
social issues even if the parties request that they do so.

*You've written at length about this, and I don't want to follow your
precedent in that regard*

Is that kind of dig really necessary? You brought it up again, not me.


Ted replies:
David, I am sorry you had the impression that I meant this as a dig. I did
not. I thought and still think my post was cordial and respectful of your
views. I write about some things at great length (for this medium), and the
fact that you wrote your opinion at length only reflects your very strong
interest in this issue--and your obvious competence to comment on it. I
used that wording about not following your precedent just as a humorous way
(I thought) of stating my wish not to go further on this myself. The words
were meant to be a joking reference to the exchange of opinions about the
law and precedents, etc. That's all.

Again, sorry for giving you the wrong impression.

Received on Tue Feb 28 08:58:12 2006

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 28 2006 - 08:58:12 EST