Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Science And Society

The Oral Arguments In The Mann Suit

23 Comments

On this day of Thanksgiving I am thankful for my excellent legal counsel:

The “question for the court,” Judge Ruiz summed up toward the end of arguments, is: “Could a jury look at this and determine that this is verifiable fraud?” Hopefully, the court will answer no, holding instead that such subjective and political questions are best arbitrated by the public and not by the legal system. If it does, Mann’s options will narrow dramatically. In the case of a dismissal, Mann would still technically be able to apply for en banc review, or even to petition the Supreme Court directly. The chances of either court’s electing to take up an appeal from him, however, seem slim. And rightly so. Mann is indulging here in a dangerous game — in a petty and quixotic attempt to recruit the nation’s courts to his side and to forestall any criticism of himself and his work. If the First Amendment is to be worth the paper it is written on, those courts should refuse to be co-opted. Rather, they should dismiss the case as soon as is possible, reminding us as they do that, in America, robust public debate is not actionable, but worthy of celebration instead.

Yes.

And a very Happy Thanksgiving to all my readers.

23 thoughts on “The Oral Arguments In The Mann Suit”

  1. “[National Review’s Counsel, Michael] Carvin made explicit what is at stake in this case. “We don’t allow juries to decide scientific questions”

    Yup! Take that, Leland!

  2. In the thread on Ferguson, Leland argued, quite reasonably, that the Grand Jury did decide various scientific questions. Leland said: “Witnesses, who spoke to the Grand Jury and gave accounts that are consistent with the physical evidence, said Brown was charging. Wilson said he feared for his life. Bullet entry wounds on the front of the body suggest Brown had turned back to face Wilson, after Wilson exited his vehicle to pursue Brown.” Leland then described this as a triumph of the scientific method.

    Can Leland and Mr. Carvin both be correct? Mr. Carvin also said ““No court in the history of Anglo-American jurisprudence has allowed a scientific question to go to a jury”. Is Ferguson a counter-example? Are the vast number of other cases involving gunshots, fingerprints, DNA evidence, and, generally, forensic investigations, also counter-examples?

      1. I absolutely don’t want to hijack the thread. I want to address the very substance of the matter discussed in the National Review article you linked to above. The nature of “science” is something that is discussed on this blog quite a bit, and for once, the definition is not merely an abstract conversation – it has real legal consequences that I would expect people here would be interested in addressing and clarifying.

        But if the only appropriate subject in this thread is thanksgiving, then I apologize. I am thankful for your commentary, and your readers’ commentary, and I wish you and my fellow readers a very enjoyable thanksgiving.

          2. Mr. Carvin said “““No court in the history of Anglo-American jurisprudence has allowed a scientific question to go to a jury”.

            Is that claim true? I brought up Ferguson as a counter-example that was recently discussed here, but the issue I find interesting is whether or not Mr. Carvin is correct. (When I read the comments Leland left for Jim, I decided that I was wrong, and Leland was right, and that the grand jury’s conclusion was a (small) victory for science. And that made today’s commentary on the Mann case so interesting to me. But as I pointed out above, any case involving forensics could be considered here. If forensic questions are scientific questions, then Mr. Carvin’s claim isn’t literally true at all, and perhaps his arguments in the future should be honed to clarify what it is that he is getting at!

          5. I think dailyb is missing the point. The jury decides questions of fact, such as, did John kill Jack. Included in that is any scientific issue they need in order to judge their case.
            But here the issue in the case is not, What does climate science say? It is, What did Rand Simberg think?
            The consensus of most climate scientists might be relevant to that question, but probably is not.

          6. MikeR,

            I don’t know how to reconcile your comment with the question the judge asked: ““Could a jury look at this and determine that this is verifiable fraud?” Couldn’t expert witnesses help the jury determine whether it was? How would this be different from how expert witnesses often help juries determine other scientific questions (with the proviso that usually such scientific questions are of a forensic or medical nature).

          9. I thought the judge’s question was serious, and the answer might well be “No”. If it were “verifiable fraud”, that would probably end the case. But if it isn’t verifiable (and it isn’t, at least by the stricter definitions of fraud), that doesn’t mean that Mann wins. It means now you move to the questions of was it “fraudulent” by some definition, was Simberg recklessly lying, or did he possibly believe what he wrote.
            I really don’t see how anyone who spends any time on the skeptical side of the blogosphere can doubt that he and many others believe these kind of things.

          10. I completely believe that Rand believes what he was saying! I’m just unclear: is there some route where Mann wins even if Rand did believe what he was saying?

      2. When the medical examiner successfully sues the Brown family for calling the autopsy report “junk”, we’ll talk.

  5. I hope all Rand’s readers have a good Thanksgiving and are not stuck traveling.

    I’m tankful for all the free ice cream Rand provides and hope he wins this lawsuit so that it can continue.

Comments are closed.