Dershowitz on Rehnquist

[JFN]

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.

John Noble
NotaConlawprof

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."
>
>Bobby
>
>Robert Justin Lipkin
>Professor of Law
>Widener University School of Law
>Delaware
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20050910/192b94b9/attachment.html