Christian biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

[MJ-W4]

Speaking of biases: the WHOI's work is of relevance outside the US. Outside the US, however, creationism is virtually non-existant. It is regarded religious fanatism, and not to be found anywhere near science. The taint of creationism will more than likely void international acceptance of research results by WHOI let alone destroy their reputation as a renowned research institute.

 

The US in general are losing international scientific credibility almost by the minute as long as they don't get their act together and firmly kick creationists back into the religious corner they belong into. Allowing creatinism to interfere with science is more than just a little frowned upon outside the US.

 

The lawsuit at hand will tell us whether the US want to remain among their peers in international science or whether they prefer to give up their part in the scientific community for the sake of religious fanatism.

 

I just want to point out that this seemingly small legal matter will affect all of the US and their scientific credibility. For the US as one of the world's leading scientific nations, there is more at stake than an employment squabble.

[Darth InSidious]

...By creationism, I take it we refer to what Dawkinsites would classify as 'Young Earth' creationism?

[Achilles]

...By creationism, I take it we refer to what Dawkinsites would classify as 'Young Earth' creationism?

Not necessarily. Some flavors of OEC also reject evolution.

[Darth InSidious]

Having checked the definition of OEC, I see how that might work. Good to know, thanks.

[Jae Onasi]

Speaking of biases: the WHOI's work is of relevance outside the US. Outside the US, however, creationism is virtually non-existant. It is regarded religious fanatism, and not to be found anywhere near science. The taint of creationism will more than likely void international acceptance of research results by WHOI let alone destroy their reputation as a renowned research institute.

 

The US in general are losing international scientific credibility almost by the minute as long as they don't get their act together and firmly kick creationists back into the religious corner they belong into. Allowing creatinism to interfere with science is more than just a little frowned upon outside the US.

 

The lawsuit at hand will tell us whether the US want to remain among their peers in international science or whether they prefer to give up their part in the scientific community for the sake of religious fanatism.

 

I just want to point out that this seemingly small legal matter will affect all of the US and their scientific credibility. For the US as one of the world's leading scientific nations, there is more at stake than an employment squabble.

 

I think that's overblowing this whole issue. This would never have been an issue if the company hadn't given him crap for sharing his personal belief. It says in the brief he was going to conduct research in line with the company's evolution theory, so that should have zero impact on the company's scientific credibility. We're doing so much scientific/medical research here that I doubt we're going to get taken less seriously because of the beliefs of one guy on whether to call something a theory or a fact.

 

The way things are worded in the brief makes me think this is going to be a case on freedom of religion more than creationism vs. evolutionism--his main contention is that he wanted the freedom to call evolution a theory rather than scientific fact. If you include in the definition of of scientific fact that the experiment has to be repeatable, then evolution is indeed a theory--it's not a repeatable process in its entirety.

[Achilles]

I think that's overblowing this whole issue. This would never have been an issue if the company hadn't given him crap for sharing his personal belief.

*sigh* I thought we'd made progress with post #50.

 

It says in the brief he was going to conduct research in line with the company's evolution theory, so that should have zero impact on the company's scientific credibility.

Mimartin addressed this in post #46, but I don't recall seeing you respond to that point.

 

We're doing so much scientific/medical research here that I doubt we're going to get taken less seriously because of the beliefs of one guy on whether to call something a theory or a fact.

I agree that taken in and of itself, you're probably correct. However taken in the context of one of many similiar flare-ups, I can definitely see that the camel's back is not free of straws.

 

MJ-W4 may have over-emphasized the impact of this particular case, but I think his overall point is valid.

 

The way things are worded in the brief makes me think this is going to be a case on freedom of religion more than creationism vs. evolutionism--his main contention is that he wanted the freedom to call evolution a theory rather than scientific fact.

Yes, I'm sure that's how the breifing that was filed by the representative of the Christian Law Association on behalf of their christian client is being portrayed.

 

The way the facts of the case (as they have been presented to the public thus far) look makes me think that this is going to be a case on acceptance of evolution being a BFOQ for evolutionary biology research. May turn out that it is. May turn out that it's not. The fact that Mr. Abraham's lawyer is already trying to establish that BFOQ has nothing to do with it tell me that they already know that it does. My 2 cents.

 

If you include in the definition of of scientific fact that the experiment has to be repeatable, then evolution is indeed a theory--it's not a repeatable process in its entirety.

I'll ask again: What is a "scientific fact" and how does it differ from a "non-scientific fact"?

 

Also, repeatability is not the sole standard for testability. Weren't you required to take any science courses at doctor school?

[Corinthian]

Speaking of biases: the WHOI's work is of relevance outside the US. Outside the US, however, creationism is virtually non-existant. It is regarded religious fanatism, and not to be found anywhere near science. The taint of creationism will more than likely void international acceptance of research results by WHOI let alone destroy their reputation as a renowned research institute.

 

The US in general are losing international scientific credibility almost by the minute as long as they don't get their act together and firmly kick creationists back into the religious corner they belong into. Allowing creatinism to interfere with science is more than just a little frowned upon outside the US.

 

The lawsuit at hand will tell us whether the US want to remain among their peers in international science or whether they prefer to give up their part in the scientific community for the sake of religious fanatism.

 

I just want to point out that this seemingly small legal matter will affect all of the US and their scientific credibility. For the US as one of the world's leading scientific nations, there is more at stake than an employment squabble.

That's funny, I was under the impression that all scientific hypotheses, theories, and even laws are subject to examination and the positing of opposing hypotheses.

[Darth InSidious]

Creationism as you folks understand it is more or less unknown outside the US. Certainly, the kind of militant, organised creationism that you have doesn't happen - or doesn't get much attention.

[Achilles]

That's funny, I was under the impression that all scientific hypotheses, theories, and even laws are subject to examination and the positing of opposing hypotheses.

They absolutely are. But that isn't what this is. Mr. Abraham's decision not to accept ToE was not a scientific one. Mr. Abraham does not have access to data that refutes or calls into question ToE. He certainly has an alternative hypothesis, however it cannot possibly be tested, therefore it isn't scientific.

 

If Mr. Abraham (or any "creation scientist" <= oxymoron) did have an alternative hypothesis that was testable or based on facts, then he (or they) would be more than welcome to submit their ideas to the guantlet of the scientific process. They would be welcome by some, an inspiration to others, and dismissed by others still, but the process itself would ultimately decide who was right and who was wrong.

 

The problem that legitimate scientists have with "creation scientists" is that the latter want the process and definitions to change so that their ideas don't have to stand up to the same scrutiny as everyone else's (double standard). That may make the "creation science" supporters feel better about themselves, but it won't do anything to move science forward or offer progress to mankind. All it will do is dumb us down even further than we already are.

 

Thanks for reading.

[MJ-W4]

It says in the brief he was going to conduct research in line with the company's evolution theory, so that should have zero impact on the company's scientific credibility.

Here are some sources to shed some light on what the brief doesn't say:

 

A, Information on the job description:

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/12/woods_hole_case_update.php

 

B, Information on Mr Hahn's letter asking Mr Abraham to resign and MCAD's hearing:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php

 

C, Further reading on serious biology:

http://systbio.org/

[Achilles]

B, Information on Mr Hahn's letter asking Mr Abraham to resign and MCAD's hearing:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/slackjawed_creationist_surpris.php

Love the analogies! Of all the ones provided, I think this one was probably the most apt:

It's like taking a job as a stockbroker and denouncing capitalism and refusing to make a profit.

Also, I really loved this part:

The creationists, both the outspoken biblical kind and the devious intelligent design kind, are eager to claim the mantle of science for their ideology. They don't get to have it. This really is a battle between science and religious mythology.

<snip quoted material within source>

Yes, evolution is fundamental to biology. You can't do major areas of biological science without evolution; even those areas where you can grind away at a narrow problem without much consideration of theory are built on a foundation of evolutionary biology.

Great stuff all around. Thanks for the links!

[SilentScope001]

You know, you could all just wait for the judge to rule if he's right or not? That why we got the court of law, not hordes of vigliantes screaming "HE'S INNOCENT!" or "HE'S GUILTY" deciding if he should receive compensation or not.

[mimartin]

Great stuff all around. Thanks for the links!

Agreed thanks for the links MJ-W4. What I found most intriguing about all the information you provide was the name David Gibbs.

[Web Rider]

....hordes of vigliantes screaming "HE'S INNOCENT!" or "HE'S GUILTY" deciding if he should receive compensation or not.

technically, that's the job of the lawyers.

 

Personally, I think it's silly, the discrimination court already said it wasn't discrimination, if he just went with that and went to find a job at some place else, then great. But it kinds reminds me of one of those "slip+fall" guys who pull crap at grocery stores.

[Achilles]

Personally, I think it's silly, the discrimination court already said it wasn't discrimination

I think this part of the post deserves some sort of award or something.

[mimartin]

You know, you could all just wait for the judge to rule if he's right or not? That why we got the court of law, not hordes of vigliantes screaming "HE'S INNOCENT!" or "HE'S GUILTY" deciding if he should receive compensation or not.

SilentScope001, I'm disappointed in you. I've already pointed out that logic has nothing to do with this debate. I really wish you and MJ-W4 would stop trying to insert such rational ideas into the debate. You know well enough that even if the company wins or Mr. Abraham wins we are still going to argue that the judgment was flawed.

 

I think this part of the post deserves some sort of award or something.

Indeed, this has been said a few times in this debate, but Web Rider statement cuts through all the **** and get to the meat of the case. Well done.

[Jae Onasi]

*sigh* I thought we'd made progress with post #50.

Sigh all you want, it exercises the respiratory system. Disagreement with some of your views does not constitute progress or lack thereof. I understand your point of view even if I don't agree with it--I don't feel like you've made an attempt to understand mine.

 

Mimartin addressed this in post #46, but I don't recall seeing you respond to that point.

Where he asks if it's the brief that was prepared by his lawyer? I thought that was self-evident in the brief itself and didn't require an answer, since it appeared to me that mimartin was just pointing out the obvious to drive home his point. But I'll clarify if that will make you happy--yes, that's the brief written by his lawyer.

 

I agree that taken in and of itself, you're probably correct. However taken in the context of one of many similiar flare-ups, I can definitely see that the camel's back is not free of straws.

MJ-W4 may have over-emphasized the impact of this particular case, but I think his overall point is valid.

I find it tough to believe that the world is going to disregard all the scientific research done just because someone happens to believe in God. There are plenty of Christian scientists out there, indeed great scientists of a variety of faiths. Are you going to disregard all the work done by Arabs in astronomy and optics hundreds of years ago because they were Muslim and their astronomy theoretically could be affected by their views of Allah? Do you disregard Einstein's work because he was Jewish? Hawkings because he's now going to church?

 

Yes, I'm sure that's how the breifing that was filed by the representative of the Christian Law Association on behalf of their christian client is being portrayed.

Really? Gosh, that thought never crossed my mind. Didn't I say above that I recognized the biases of both parties?

 

The way the facts of the case (as they have been presented to the public thus far) look makes me think that this is going to be a case on acceptance of evolution being a BFOQ for evolutionary biology research. May turn out that it is. May turn out that it's not. The fact that Mr. Abraham's lawyer is already trying to establish that BFOQ has nothing to do with it tell me that they already know that it does. My 2 cents.

Looks to me like they don't agree with the BFOQ, think Mr. Abraham was wronged and had his rights infringed upon, and feel the need to do something about it.

 

I'll ask again: What is a "scientific fact" and how does it differ from a "non-scientific fact"?

'Non-scientifc facts' don't deal with science. Math facts differ from scientific fact. Historical facts differ from scientific facts. You've got an MBA--why are you asking this?

 

Also, repeatability is not the sole standard for testability. Weren't you required to take any science courses at doctor school?

 

That's why I said "If you include in the definition of of scientific fact that the experiment has to be repeatable, then...." Weren't you required to learn what 'if...then' means in grade school?

[MJ-W4]

I find it tough to believe that the world is going to disregard all the scientific research done just because someone happens to believe in God. There are plenty of Christian scientists out there, indeed great scientists of a variety of faiths. Are you going to disregard all the work done by Arabs in astronomy and optics hundreds of years ago because they were Muslim and their astronomy theoretically could be affected by their views of Allah? Do you disregard Einstein's work because he was Jewish? Hawkings because he's now going to church?

There is a huge difference between believing in God and being a fool for a religious pressure group.

 

This isn't about believing in God, or any religion at all, it's religious extremism trying to thwart science in this case. Except for Mr Abraham, none of the scientists you mention let their personal views or religion get in the way with the job at hand. I firmly believe in God but I won't let my personal belief/views/opinions interfere with science and my job.

[Achilles]

Skipping ahead a little:

Really? Gosh, that thought never crossed my mind. Didn't I say above that I recognized the biases of both parties?

Yes, and then you turned around and promptly picked the rhetoric right up from where you'd left it. Hence my bemoaning the lack of progress.

 

Sigh all you want, it exercises the respiratory system. Disagreement with some of your views does not constitute progress or lack thereof. I understand your point of view even if I don't agree with it--I don't feel like you've made an attempt to understand mine.

You're not even addressing the arguments. You keep repeating the same thing over again as though it's going to magically make the legal issues in the case disappear. If you were actually trying to address what I was saying then it might be easier for me to see how you are disagreeing with me, rather than simply repeating yourself.

 

Where he asks if it's the brief that was prepared by his lawyer? I thought that was self-evident in the brief itself and didn't require an answer, since it appeared to me that mimartin was just pointing out the obvious to drive home his point. But I'll clarify if that will make you happy--yes, that's the brief written by his lawyer.

Therefore the brief that you keep referencing as gospel is biased. Same page now, right?

 

I find it tough to believe that the world is going to disregard all the scientific research done just because someone happens to believe in God.

Wow, that is so far from the actual issue at hand that I'm not even sure where to begin. Kenneth Miller believes in god. Isn't quiet about it either. Somehow manages to be able to do science (writes Biology text books in fact). The issue doesn't have anything to do with belief in god. It has everything to do with not accepting the ToE.

 

The fact that he doesn't accept it for religious reasons is completely secondary. He would have been let go if he had cited some other reason. But because he is a christian then he gets to cry foul and get assistance from the CLA and generally make a big religious stink out of something that isn't really a religious issue.

 

There are plenty of Christian scientists out there, indeed great scientists of a variety of faiths.

Indeed and so long as they do science in the lab, then they are welcome to it (even though I personally think they are hypocrites).

 

Are you going to disregard all the work done by Arabs in astronomy and optics hundreds of years ago because they were Muslim and their astronomy theoretically could be affected by their views of Allah?

Not at all, although I will discount any "scientific" conclusion that sounds anything like "goddidit".

 

Looks to me like they don't agree with the BFOQ, think Mr. Abraham was wronged and had his rights infringed upon, and feel the need to do something about it.

Oh. Well then clearly that's exactly what happened. Remind me why we need a legal system again?

 

'Non-scientifc facts' don't deal with science. Math facts differ from scientific fact. Historical facts differ from scientific facts.

Thank for the laugh, Jae.

Kudos for at least attempting to answer though.

 

Main Entry: fact

Pronunciation: \fakt\

Function: noun

Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere

Date: 15th century

 

1: a thing done: as aobsolete : feat b: crime <accessory after the fact> carchaic : action

2 archaic : performance, doing

3: the quality of being actual : actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>

4 a: something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>

5: a piece of information presented as having objective reality

— in fact : in truth

Couldn't find entries for any of the other flavors that you mentioned. Maybe I just live a different universe where facts are facts regardless of which context they are used in (i.e. something is either a fact or it is something else).

 

You've got an MBA--why are you asking this?

Nope, sure don't but good guess. I do have a Masters level degree in business though.

 

Might have a "doctor degree" someday too.

 

That's why I said "If you include in the definition of of scientific fact that the experiment has to be repeatable, then...." Weren't you required to learn what 'if...then' means in grade school?

So then the point of your comment was...?

[Jae Onasi]

Skipping ahead a little:

Yes, and then you turned around and promptly picked the rhetoric right up from where you'd left it. Hence my bemoaning the lack of progress.

 

You're not even addressing the arguments. You keep repeating the same thing over again as though it's going to magically make the legal issues in the case disappear. If you were actually trying to address what I was saying then it might be easier for me to see how you are disagreeing with me, rather than simply repeating yourself.

You said the issue is evolution vs. creationism in this case. That may be part of it. I still think it's going to develop into a freedom of religion issue. There's not a whole lot more to say on this.

 

Therefore the brief that you keep referencing as gospel is biased. Same page now, right?

When were you off that page? I thought that you thought there was bias, too, as I stated there was above.

 

Wow, that is so far from the actual issue at hand that I'm not even sure where to begin. Kenneth Miller believes in god. Isn't quiet about it either. Somehow manages to be able to do science (writes Biology text books in fact). The issue doesn't have anything to do with belief in god. It has everything to do with not accepting the ToE.

You appear to be implying (if not stating explicitly) that good science cannot be done when one has religious beliefs.

 

The fact that he doesn't accept it for religious reasons is completely secondary. He would have been let go if he had cited some other reason. But because he is a christian then he gets to cry foul and get assistance from the CLA and generally make a big religious stink out of something that isn't really a religious issue.

Are you reading some brief I'm not? Religious beliefs and the freedom to express them are at the heart of this case.

 

Oh. Well then clearly that's exactly what happened. Remind me why we need a legal system again?

Remind me why we're here again? Oh, yes, to express our thoughts and opinions on a subject. I'm sure more will come to light during the trial and that well may alter my opinion on the subject.

 

Thank for the laugh, Jae.

Kudos for at least attempting to answer though.

Well, I thought it was rather a silly question, to be honest.

 

 

Couldn't find entries for any of the other flavors that you mentioned. Maybe I just live a different universe where facts are facts regardless of which context they are used in (i.e. something is either a fact or it is something else).

You asked for 'scientific fact' vs. 'non-scientific fact'. If you meant something else instead, then please specify.

 

Nope, sure don't but good guess. I do have a Masters level degree in business though.

I stand corrected.

 

Might have a "doctor degree" someday too.

That would honestly be very cool.

 

So then the point of your comment was...?

An answer to your question.

[Achilles]

You said the issue is evolution vs. creationism in this case.

I just read through every post I've made in this thread and I can't find where you found this. I'm assuming maybe post #42, but I don't think I said anything there that somehow contradicts what I said above or what I've been saying this whole time: acceptance of ToE is a BFOQ for working in an evolutionary science research lab.

 

That may be part of it. I still think it's going to develop into a freedom of religion issue. There's not a whole lot more to say on this.

You mean hoping? That doesn't surprise me at all.

 

When were you off that page? I thought that you thought there was bias, too, as I stated there was above.

It's not about me; it's about you. You seem to be having trouble accepting that Mr. Abraham's brief might be biased. Every chance you get, you reference it as though it were "The Truth" and everything else is a pack of nasty lies put forth as part of a conspiracy to persecute christians.

 

You appear to be implying (if not stating explicitly) that good science cannot be done when one has religious beliefs.

Considering the part of my post that you quoted here, I cannot fathom how you came to that conclusion.

 

Are you reading some brief I'm not? Religious beliefs and the freedom to express them are at the heart of this case.

You're more than welcome to share with me how you came to this conclusion, but please don't reference the brief that everyone here (except you) has acknowledged is biased. I am by no means an expert, but I have had to take half a dozen employement law classes over the course of my life. I used to teach a class on discrimination and workplace practices. I'm going to trust my own understanding of the legal system over your hand-waving when it comes to whether or not this appears to be a matter of establishing a BFOQ.

 

As always, you are happily invited to show me how I'm wrong, but so far you've only opted to repeat the same discredited argument over and over again.

 

Remind me why we're here again? Oh, yes, to express our thoughts and opinions on a subject. I'm sure more will come to light during the trial and that well may alter my opinion on the subject.

And you're welcome to them. I don't think your hand-waving is persuading anyone though. If your goal is only to voice your opinion, then you've done so and we've all seen it. If it's to argue a point, well then you might need some actual arguments.

 

Well, I thought it was rather a silly question, to be honest.

*shrugs* You're the one that used "scientific fact" as though it the term had some significance.

 

You asked for 'scientific fact' vs. 'non-scientific fact'. If you meant something else instead, then please specify.

You're right, I absolutely did. Unfortunately, I don't think I'm any closer to understanding what you mean when you use this made-up term, but perhaps I'm not meant to.

 

An answer to your question.

Interesting that the post that I originally questioned you on was a response to someone else (in which you weren't answering a question). Would you like to try using another answer?

[SilentScope001]

technically, that's the job of the lawyers.

 

Personally, I think it's silly, the discrimination court already said it wasn't discrimination, if he just went with that and went to find a job at some place else, then great. But it kinds reminds me of one of those "slip+fall" guys who pull crap at grocery stores.

 

Well, of course, judges can be biased, or they forget certain 'aspects'. Judges are humans too. That why we got a repeal system, to ensure that there is no miscarriage of judgement. But once it reaches the Supreme Court, the verdict is inscribed as the Holy Writ.

 

We got repeals for a reason. Sometimes, a higher court overturns the desicion of the lower court because the higher court thinks the lower court is a moron.

 

Take in point a gun control case being sent to the Supreme Court. Now, Washigtion, D.C. had a law stating that handguns be banned. People were angry and said it violated the 2nd Amendment. The city states it doesn't, because the 2nd Amendment bans the prohibiting of weapons for militas, you can stop regular citizens from having guns.

 

Now, the first court who heard the case said D.C. was right. By your logic, the pro-gun people should stop. But the 2nd Amedment dudes didn't stop, and the Court of Appeals overturned the previous ruling, and claimed that the 2nd Amendmnet bans gun control for all humans, not those belonging to a milita. Now, it's being sent to the Supreme Court, and who knows what will happen there?

 

Anyway, I'm paying attention only because this is a lawsuit. But I do think that both sides have valid points, and this is exactly the reason we have the legal system.

[mimartin]

But once it reaches the Supreme Court, the verdict is inscribed as the Holy Writ.

I believe you made some valid points, but the sentence I quoted bothers me. I’d just like to add to this the amendment if you don’t mind. But once it reaches the Supreme Court, the majority opinion is inscribed as the Holy Writ, at least until we get those old farts out of there and get our own old farts in there. Then they will strike down the formers opinion and write their own to our liking. Problem is they are appointed for life and that is a very longtime.

[Jae Onasi]

IYou seem to be having trouble accepting that Mr. Abraham's brief might be biased.

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2397864&postcount=50

http://www.lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2398161&postcount=70

 

Twice I've noted that there is bias on both--it's a lawsuit. People on both sides are not going to be happy campers about the situations. Why do you persist in stating that I have not accepted this when I have two different posts acknowledging it?

 

Every chance you get, you reference it as though it were "The Truth" and everything else is a pack of nasty lies put forth as part of a conspiracy to persecute christians.

Please show me where I stated that it's a conspiracy to persecute Christians.

 

 

 

You're more than welcome to share with me how you came to this conclusion, but please don't reference the brief that everyone here (except you) has acknowledged is biased.

Why are you being dishonest about my not noting bias, especially when the evidence is noted above?

 

I am by no means an expert, but I have had to take half a dozen employement law classes over the course of my life. I used to teach a class on discrimination and workplace practices. I'm going to trust my own understanding of the legal system over your hand-waving when it comes to whether or not this appears to be a matter of establishing a BFOQ.

Well then, feel free to quote relevant employment law. Which sources will you be using?

 

 

As always, you are happily invited to show me how I'm wrong, but so far you've only opted to repeat the same discredited argument over and over again.

And it's discredited because it may well have bias? Do you discredit business sources because they're biased towards capitalist or socialist policy? Just because there is bias does not discount the entire set of facts that are brought out in the brief. You cannot discount an entire source because of bias. You take it into account, surely, but you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

 

"] *shrugs* You're the one that used "scientific fact" as though it the term had some significance.

Because in the news stories and the brief, the argument is that Mr. Abraham wants to call ToE a theory rather than scientific fact. That's the original contention, and I'm not the one ignoring it. They make that distinction, so I was speaking in that paradigm.

 

Interesting that the post that I originally questioned you on was a response to someone else (in which you weren't answering a question). Would you like to try using another answer?

Would you like stating a little more clearly just what you mean? There was only one question in that post that you referenced, unless you're meaning something else.

[SilentScope001]

I believe you made some valid points, but the sentence I quoted bothers me. I’d just like to add to this the amendment if you don’t mind. But once it reaches the Supreme Court, the majority opinion is inscribed as the Holy Writ, at least until we get those old farts out of there and get our own old farts in there. Then they will strike down the formers opinion and write their own to our liking. Problem is they are appointed for life and that is a very longtime.

 

You know, I sorta forgot about that part. My bad. Yeah, I accept your amendment.