Freshwater: Board motion denied

Looks like the fix is in. They do realize what will happen if they try to put Freshwater in a class room again, I hope.

Why do they call these things "briefs"?

This circus has been going on for two years.

Ain't nuthin brief about it.

Well, IANAL but IMO that ups the ante considerably.

Seems the Ohio Spremes have decided that they don't want to dismiss this thing on legal technical grounds - even good ones. Which probably means they either want to do a substantive smack down of Freshwater or a substantive smack down of the Board.

stevaroni said: Why do they call these things "briefs"? This circus has been going on for two years. Ain't nuthin brief about it.

I don't find this inexplicable at all. It has been a concern from the moment the Ohio SC opted to take on the case that the bench has a pro-creationist agenda and every decision since then has only served to strengthen that concern.

So I decided to take a look at the current bench. Some facts:

6 of judges are Republican, only 1 is Democrat, although one (Pfeifer) tends to vote closer to the Democrat ticket despite being a nominal Republican.

The Ohio SC is infamous for its judges voting in favour of their campaign benefactors. Yes, you heard that right, these judges routinely accept large donations and then preside over litigation cases involving their donors. In many cases, the donations were accepted after the case had been argued but before the judge handed down a decision. That is, these judges accepted large donations from plaintiffs or defendants while they were deliberating on the case.

According to The New York Times, of 125 cases where the Ohio judges had direct conflicts of interest, they recused themselves only 9 times. And although many of the justices claim that they are still able to be fair to all litigators and the donations do not affect their judgements, the figures show that 70% of cases are decided in favour of their campaign donors -- and in the case of Justice O'Donnell it's a whopping 91%.

So I thought I'd check out O'Donnell's campaign contributors. Of the $523,000 he raised for this year's campaign, $192,000 is from "uncoded" sources and another $107,000 is from "lawyers and lobbyists". In other words, he received more than half of his funding from sources where the ideology/motivation for the donation is effectively undeclared.

Thanks for that day brightener! :)

On the other hand, motions to strike are rarely granted, especially at the appellate (or higher) level. The general attitude is that they are judges after all, not the hoi polloi, and will give due weight to the materials. "Don't tell us what we can or cannot consider."

ahcuah said: On the other hand, motions to strike are rarely granted, especially at the appellate (or higher) level. The general attitude is that they are judges after all, not the hoi polloi, and will give due weight to the materials. "Don't tell us what we can or cannot consider."

I hope that this court will be so slow in reaching a decision in Freshwater's favor
that President Obama will have by then appointed another judge to SCOTUS.
Or whatever decision they reach pro or con.

Had Romney of gotten elected there would be much more to be concerned about.

Assuming, of course, that Mt. Vernon has the will and resources to go all the way
if necessary.

Charley Horse said: I hope that this court will be so slow in reaching a decision in Freshwater's favor that President Obama will have by then appointed another judge to SCOTUS. Or whatever decision they reach pro or con.

Assuming, of course, that Mt. Vernon has the will and resources to go all the way if necessary.

Richard B. Hoppe said: Thanks for that day brightener! :)

Richard B. Hoppe said:

Charley Horse said: I hope that this court will be so slow in reaching a decision in Freshwater's favor that President Obama will have by then appointed another judge to SCOTUS. Or whatever decision they reach pro or con.

My understanding is that the Court is likely to render its decision by June 2013, the end of its current session.

Assuming, of course, that Mt. Vernon has the will and resources to go all the way if necessary.

The Board's insurance company is carrying the ball.

stevaroni said: Why do they call these things "briefs"? This circus has been going on for two years. Ain't nuthin brief about it.

Oral Argument Calendar January 8, 2013 - April 10, 2013* Oral Argument Calendar Maureen O'Connor, Chief Justice Paul E. Pfeifer Terrence O'Donnell Judith Ann Lanzinger Sharon L. Kennedy Judith L. French William M. O'Neill Justices Steven C. Hollon, Administrative Director Kristina D. Frost, Clerk of the Court Sandra H. Grosko, Reporter Each side is allowed 15 minutes for oral argument unless otherwise noted. Court convenes promptly at 9 a.m. Counsel in all cases are expected to be present when court convenes. Counsel should register with the chief deputy clerk prior to 8:45 a.m. [...] WEDNESDAY February 27 9 a.m. [...] 12-0613 John Freshwater v. Mount Vernon City School District Board of Education Knox

Oops, here's the link for the Ohio Supreme Court Oral Argument Calendar:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Clerk/calendar/

Thanks for the reminder. I plan to post on it a few days before oral arguments. They'll be streamed online that morning, and a video will be posted that evening.