20 thoughts on “A Mann Suit Victory”

  1. All this delay is clearly a violation of the Geneva Convention. I’d much prefer to be waterboarded.

  2. Is this a hearing on the arguments of the merits of dismissal, or is this an argument on the legal standards
    used by the District court judge on deciding to not dismiss or is this a hearing on wether the court
    of appeals can even hear the matter on an interlocutory basis?

  3. I know I speak for a lot of folks when I say we’ve got our fingers crossed that this ridiculous thing gets tossed out. Better late than never!

  4. But Rand, you stated in one of the thread below that you believed the function of the Constitution was to protect citizens against the federal government, not restrict the behavior of citizens. If so why are you trying to use the First Amendment to stop Dr. Mann from suing you? Do you feel he is the government? Or are you just showing your own self interest 🙂

    1. Mann is trying to use the power of the Federal Government to advance his cause and stifle his critics. If that is not something the Constitution protects against, then we might as well go ahead and shred it and line up for the re-education camps.

      1. Bart,

        So you are arguing he is a government official? And not merely someone who just happens to be a more effective lobbyist than Rand in regard to climate research.

          1. So you are not arguing that Congress should ignore it? Or trying to influence the public debate?

        2. Mann is a public employee who’s research is at least partially government funded. He is very much a government official even though he doesn’t work for the IRS.

          1. He is a state employee, not a federal one. And as with most federal grants the money went to the university, not to him directly.

        3. What? Are you arguing that he is not attempting to use the power of the government on his behalf? Really?

          1. And how is that different than Rand advocating for fuel depots or other NASA programs? Both are advocating specific public policy positions which they might benefit from professionally if funded. Dr. Mann is just more successful at it than Rand is.

      1. Ah, your typical response when someone hits the nail on the head 🙂

        But anyone who hasn’t drunk your kool-aid who reads your blog is familiar with your double standards…

        1. Its ok, you are using a smiley face to advertise that you are trolling. As if it wasn’t already apparent…

        2. someone hits the nail on the head

          Bart hit the nail on the head, but Matula’s question was idiotic. No where did Bart imply that Mann was a government official. Rather he stated Mann was trying to use the federal government to advance his cause. For a guy who claims to be against subsidies (except when his employer gets them) and is an educator at college that gets federal funds, one would think Matula would understand how someone could use the federal government to advance their cause without being a government official.

    3. If so why are you trying to use the First Amendment to stop Dr. Mann from suing you?

      I am not. We don’t cite the First Amendment in any of our filings. I’m simply pointing out that the spirit of the First Amendment is (among other things) to protect freedom of expression. Thanks for playing, though.

      2. Technically the 1st Amendment is only to protect free speech from Governmental action.

        You can be sacked from employment for stating public positions.

        I believe Rand spent a lot of time writing about Ward Churchill getting his tenured position taken away from him.

        1. You can be sacked from employment for stating public positions.

          Rand doesn’t work for Penn State. Ward Churchill could only lose his tenure from his employer.

          Still, I don’t recall Rand doing what you claimed. Then again, I haven’t seen much evidence to support various things you claim on this blog.

Comments are closed.