Sic et Non
FollowPatheos Mormon on:
Sherif Girgis is one of the most interesting thinkers out there on the redefinition of marriage and related questions:
USA Today 3/3/2014: “Judge dismisses witness in Mich. gay marriage trial”
“The state had planned on having its first witness — Sherif Girgis — on the stand for up to two hours. Prior to getting dismissed, Girgis spent about 20 minutes on the stand listing his credentials [...] But [Judge] Friedman dismissed the witness following arguments from the plaintiffs’ side, who noted that Girgis is not a lawyer, child development expert, psychologist or expert in Michigan law. He has no experience in the issues that matter in this case, the plaintiffs argued.”
i think this highlights the fact that traditionalists have no legal case. one of their most “interesting thinkers” on the issue isn’t even qualified to testify (and they approved Regnerus to testify in this case so we know the bar is plenty low).
btw, Regnerus is getting absolutely *destroyed* under oath right now in the Michigan case. The LDS Church was wise to avoid citing his “study”, but apparently the Sutherland Institute guy that the state hired just couldn’t resist.
I was going to say the same thing. However the word “Destroyed” might be an understatement. He is getting crucified, drawn and quartered, while being forced to listen to Michael Bolton.
It’s amusing how the immoralists are trying to turn Dan’s blog into their own echo chamber of shared schadenfreude. The case you are in such raptures about isn’t even mentioned in this post.
wow, next expert witness for State of Michigan is BYU’s own Joseph Price! will he also be dismissed for lack of expertise? or merely shredded in cross examination? …can’t wait to find out.
I’m guessing “shredded.”
Your guesses mean a lot to me, Mr. Lesnar.
So do statistics regarding the consumption of Cap’n Crunch cereal in certain economic sectors of rural Bolivia.
Dan, It’s much more than a guess. It’s based on decades of personal experience, education and knowledge.
Joseph Price is walking into a lion’s den and he will get “shredded”, much like Regnerus was.
So, please forgive me when I completely discount your opinion and thoughts on legal matters. They mean as much to me as “consumption of Cap’n Crunch cereal in certain economic sectors of rural Boliva.”
It’s sad, Mr. Lesnar, that you don’t make your preemptive opinions of what will happen during expert testimony more widely available.
There would be no need to waste time actually HEARING the testimony. Trials could be dispensed with, and much expense spared.
Dan wrote : “It’s sad, Mr. Lesnar, that you don’t make your preemptive opinions of what will happen during expert testimony more widely available.”
It’s funny you should mention this, because I was actually recently retained (and paid well, might I add) to provide my opinion and insights about what would happen during expert/fact witness examination, among other things.
It’s all part of my job. I would do it more here, but I would have to send you a bill, and I doubt you would be able to afford me.
Once they shred Joseph Price, I hope you will come back to this thread and acknowledge who was correct.
Well, as I say, with you in this world we can now dispense with trials and hearings.
No expert could ever really be such an expert as you are.
From your summary, the dismissal of Girgis was stupidly obtuse. The relevant book of which he was apparently the principal author (“What is Marriage?”) is an ethical/philosophical one, whose argument rests on neither child development studies, psychological theory, nor, of all things, the recent laws of the Midwestern American state of Michigan.
The words “arrogant,” “ignorant,” and “narrow-minded” also seem potentially relevant.
Dan wrote: “…ethical/philosophical one, whose argument rests on neither child development studies, psychological theory, nor, of all things, the recent laws of the Midwestern American state of Michigan.”
That is the very reason Girgis was not allowed to testify. I know it sounds crazy but our legal system prefers and indeed demands, evidence, not philosophical opinions. No matter how attractive Girgis philosophical opinions might be to you Dan, they are not allowed in a court of law. And, for very good reasons.
U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman said of Girgis in pertinent part, “all he is offering to us is mainly his opinions. The court does not believe … that he should be allowed to testify.”
AP 3/3/2014: ” ‘The fact is you’re still a student. Someone else is still grading your papers,’ said attorney Ken Mogill ” wow, pantsed in front of the whole court — how embarrassing for Girgis.
Follow Patheos on