Friday, November 6, 2009
Education / Law and Order / Woods Some of Mike Turner's Best Friends Are Black
Posted by Jeff Woods on Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 6:45 AM
Comments (9)
Showing 1-9 of 9
The Plantiff's witnesses are staying with
the same theme since the lst day of discussions on this rezoning plan. As far
Dr. Garcia's memo, this comes after he knew
he was being dismissed by the Board and was
angry that it wasn't on his terms. Judge
Nixon and Attorney Woods have been friends
for many years. I just hope he comes to a
fair and legally sound decision in the case
without new law from the Bench!
like
dislike
A holding that districting for the purpose of achieving racial segregation is illegal would not be "new law." It is, and has been for many years, the law of the land.
I have no personal knowledge of the behind-the-scenes facts in this case. However, in my experience, consistent testimony by a plaintiff's witnesses does not necessarily mean that testimony has been orchestrated, as you seem to imply, SouthernIndie. Consistency may only mean that the witnesses are telling the truth.
The defense has had, and will have, the opportunity to cross-examine every plaintiff's witness. If the defense is unable to show that witnesses are lying, someone will have to decide whether the plaintiff's witnesses are more credible than the defense witnesses, who will certainly deny any racial motivation.
Making such credibility determinations is not "making new law" either. It's what judges in every courtroom in America do every day.
Sounds like Mike Turner might have one best friend who is black: Jerry Maynard. Oh, and probably Karen Johnson but she's everybody's best friend.
The defendants lost this case the moment it was assigned to Nixon, someone who has an impressive grasp of paternalism when it comes to his view of the role of the judiciary.
I seem to remember back in the 80s he distinguished himself while hearing the case of the firing of an African-American principal in Clarksville. He intervened during questioning of teachers who served under this principal to tell them that they were lying.
So much for blind Justice where Judge Nixon is concerned.
To be sure, the plaintiffs may well deserve to win on the merits. But judges like Nixon and reporters like Mr. Woods undermine the legitimacy of the verdict because we know how they will look at the facts before any testimony is given.
This is the price of advocacy journalism and judicial activism. And we are all worse for it.
Mr. Rogers:
It should be noted that Jeff Woods' opinion about this case is meaningless, since Mr. Woods will not be making any decisions about the case. Clearly, you already believe he is wrong; so how can anything he says, now or later, affect your opinion of the verdict?
Ultimately, the only opinion that counts at the trial level is Judge Nixon's, and he's heard more school desegregation cases than most living judges in America. If his ruling in this matter cannot be justified by the evidence, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals can, and should, overturn it. I would be shocked if this case isn't appealed, no matter who prevails at trial.
Not being psychic, however, I'm not as certain as you that Judge Nixon will get it wrong, much less that he has prejudged the case before hearing the evidence. It's a pretty serious charge to allege that a federal judge will corrupt his oath of office by intentionally misconstruing the facts or misapplying the law.
The last person I heard of making such a charge was California lawyer/dentist/real estate salesman Orly Taitz, who is now trying to raise the money to pay the sanctions imposed for such conduct.
I wasn't at the hearing, so don't know the full context, but I'm thinking that this may not be good for the plaintiffs: "At another point, the judge spoke up again, asking Zorwick to define paternalism--a word that hadn't come up in her testimony. "That's acting as if we know better than a group of people what's best for them," she replied."
Given that, according to the City Paper, "an overwhelming 72 percent of Metro students most directly affected by a controversial rezoning plan are choosing to attend their so-called neighborhood schools," it would seem that paternalism would be acting like someone other than these families knows best where they should have chosen to enroll.
Mark,
"Intentionally misconstruing the facts or misapplying the law" is a wonderful definition of the 9th Circuit which manages to be unanimously overturned more than any other Circuit Court on a regular basis. Yet no one suggests that making that point is actionable.
That you think so suggests that you are the sort of leftist that ought not be placed on a work bench much less a legal one.
Check out hmmm's comments for a good example of what I meant.
