Dershowitz on Rehnquist
jfnbl at earthlink.com
Sat Sep 10 19:39:21 PDT 2005
I'm not sure what your problem is. I'm dead serious. I accurately
catalogued Dershowitz's evidence of antisemitism. I applied the rules
of evidence because they are designed to evaluate the reliability of
evidence -- they are not mere formalities or technicalities. Their
application to Dershowitz's evidence lent itself to ridicule because
his evidence is ridiculous. If you have a better way to evaluate the
evidence, use yours, but it seems to me that Prof. Dershowitz has
accomplished his purpose when we have lawyers allowing that it's
"fine to suggest Dershowitz support his allegations," but all the
same they are "resonating here."
I'm done. The defense rests -- unless somebody who actually liked
Rehnquist wants to take over.
At 9:03 PM -0400 9/10/05, RJLipkin at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 9/10/2005 6:33:12 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>jfnbl at earthlink.com writes:
>You need to go back and read the indictment.
>The charge of antisemitism rests on three allegations. Let's look at
>the evidence and pretend we're lawyers.
> If this and what follows it is serious, it needs no reply.
>If the intent is humor, then apparently Dershowitz is not alone in
>being unable "to tell the difference between offensive and funny."
>Robert Justin Lipkin
>Professor of Law
>Widener University School of Law
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Conlawprof