Percy quotes:
We all know what has happened. Many courts simply decide the case in favor of the plaintiff or the defendant, have him prepare the findings of fact and conclusions of law and sign them.
Yes Judge Jones quoted the findings of fact but not the findings of law. From what I understand judges will sometimes simply sign the plaintiffs or the defendants findings in toto and essentially do no work of their own. That is what Rule 52 is about. This is not what happened here. The copying and pasting the DI is going on about is from one section of the decision. That 90% figure they mention is 90% of 1/3 of the ruling.
Nick Matzke on PT explains:
This is not the situation in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Judge Jones did not declare on the last day of the bench trial, “OK, I’m ruling for the plaintiffs. Prepare some findings and I will sign them. Defense, don’t bother.” This is the practice that is frowned upon, although I gather that cases have been upheld even in this situation.
Instead, Jones followed the regular procedure - both sides submitted Proposed Findings, then both sides submitted rebuttals, and then he went through, adopted points he liked, excluded points he didn’t like, added numerous pieces from his own observations (e.g.: “breathtaking inanity”) and synthesized it into a coherent document (rather than just a list of individual points, which is what the parties submit). This constitutes the ruling. This is far different than just signing one side’s brief.
The question that the cranks have not answered is: What do you think Proposed Findings are for? Why do you think the parties right them in the voice of the court? (e.g., “The Court finds X, the Court finds Y.”) A judge’s job is to judge, not to re-do all of the research from scratch himself, for each of the 100+ cases he will have on his docket at any given time.
I don’t think it’s surprising that a judge would quote one side’s findings of fact in a case dealing with science. To appeal to yours and my biases, one side’s findings of fact are from science and scientists, and the other side’s are utter pseudo-science. Don’t we all want the judge to quote the scientific findings of fact? What alternative do you propose? That Judge Jones perform experiments on the bac flag, get the experiments peer-reviewed, etc.?
Also, Ed Brayton’s treatment of the issue demonstrates how the judge is quoting verbatim from the findings of fact of the plaintiff, because their findings of fact are true. There are only so many ways to say something. If the plaintiff says that, “ID is, in fact, based on a false dichotomy,” how else should the judge express this?
[W]hy don't the defendants appeal?
Because this isn’t about law, it’s nothing but PR.
™ Version 4.2
