Re religion: yes, Arkansas didn't stress this and in fact tried to exclude testimony about religion. It was the ACLU's strategy to cast Arkansas as religion-driven--but then the judge ran with it and went even further than the ACLU proposed.
Appeal: Yes, weaknesses all around, but I think the problems with the judge's determinations are e…
Re religion: yes, Arkansas didn't stress this and in fact tried to exclude testimony about religion. It was the ACLU's strategy to cast Arkansas as religion-driven--but then the judge ran with it and went even further than the ACLU proposed.
Appeal: Yes, weaknesses all around, but I think the problems with the judge's determinations are enough.
Missouri: thanks for the link! Hadn't seen this latest twist. MO's case is strong on the facts and being litigated by a great team. The plaintiffs are floundering, this latest move is pathetic.
Levine: I agree that testimony is disturbing. The record doesn't contain any mitigating context. There are no heroes here.
Re religion: yes, Arkansas didn't stress this and in fact tried to exclude testimony about religion. It was the ACLU's strategy to cast Arkansas as religion-driven--but then the judge ran with it and went even further than the ACLU proposed.
Appeal: Yes, weaknesses all around, but I think the problems with the judge's determinations are enough.
Missouri: thanks for the link! Hadn't seen this latest twist. MO's case is strong on the facts and being litigated by a great team. The plaintiffs are floundering, this latest move is pathetic.
Levine: I agree that testimony is disturbing. The record doesn't contain any mitigating context. There are no heroes here.
UB: Thanks so much for this info and your insights, and glad to know MO has a strong team in place. Have a good week!