"Without a DNA test, proper notice, and full hearing, the state has no authority to declare anyone the father--and it clearly exceeds its authority incarcerating anyone who refuses to honor an illegitimate child support order. ... Judge Teitelman [of Missouri] is to be greatly commended for interpreting both civil and criminal procedure properly. ... Judge Limbaugh wrote the sole dissenting opinion. In Limbaugh's mind, under civil procedure, any process constitutes 'due process.' The ends justify the means--expediency substituting for due process--so long as it inures to the convenience of the state. ... Mr. Limbaugh, have you ever heard of 'best evidence?' Should the state entitle the most egregious possible form of marital adultery by knowingly attacking the wrong man?", David Usher at http://www.intellectualconservative.com/, 7 November.
"Le Etat c'est moi", or "I am the state", said Louis XIV, 1638-1715. Judges can justify anything. Olver Wendell Holmes, in my opinion our finest jurist ever, once said something to the effect that a judge decides what he wants, then seeks justification in the law. Why be surprised with a judge's contempt for facts and law? Judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts. Look at the Supremes and Kelo. Amazing. Some people favor Daubert and letting a judge determine what expert evidence to admit. I don't. The judge might have majored in Women's Studies in college. Can he evaluate scientfic evidence? Wait a minute, isn't evaluating evidence the jury's role? Look at OJ's case. Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's DNA evidence "expert" acquitted OJ! What did he say? That in one sample the odds against a DNA match were 57 billion to one! The jurors, yes the maligned OJ jurors, seized on that and discredited the procecution's case since there were only 6.2 billion people on earth and they had some notion of statistical independence. I discussed the case with a Cal Berkeley engineering professor who had a Cal Tech BS and Berkeley PhD who also would have acquitted, concluding the prosecution coached its experts. No, say it ain't so.
"Le Etat c'est moi", or "I am the state", said Louis XIV, 1638-1715. Judges can justify anything. Olver Wendell Holmes, in my opinion our finest jurist ever, once said something to the effect that a judge decides what he wants, then seeks justification in the law. Why be surprised with a judge's contempt for facts and law? Judges have absolute immunity for judicial acts. Look at the Supremes and Kelo. Amazing. Some people favor Daubert and letting a judge determine what expert evidence to admit. I don't. The judge might have majored in Women's Studies in college. Can he evaluate scientfic evidence? Wait a minute, isn't evaluating evidence the jury's role? Look at OJ's case. Marcia Clark and Chris Darden's DNA evidence "expert" acquitted OJ! What did he say? That in one sample the odds against a DNA match were 57 billion to one! The jurors, yes the maligned OJ jurors, seized on that and discredited the procecution's case since there were only 6.2 billion people on earth and they had some notion of statistical independence. I discussed the case with a Cal Berkeley engineering professor who had a Cal Tech BS and Berkeley PhD who also would have acquitted, concluding the prosecution coached its experts. No, say it ain't so.
No comments:
Post a Comment