11 responses

  1. Hyhybt
    January 30, 2013

    I wonder where they got the idea that the pre-flood population was at least as large as the modern day one?

    Even setting aside whether it even happened at all, that seems to be out of nowhere.

  2. AM
    January 30, 2013

    Does anyone know how one would go about filing an amicus brief?

  3. Steve
    January 30, 2013

    The correct word is “animus brief”

  4. Michael C
    January 30, 2013

    Hyhybt, according to some creationists, not only was the population larger before the flood than it is today, but the population was also larger than it is today. Larger like taller-larger. Kent Hovind teaches that humans were probably upwards of fifteen feet tall and lived six to nine hundred years.

    …talk about “out of nowhere.”

  5. Timothy Kincaid
    January 30, 2013

    Doug Mainwaring is back living with his wife.

  6. Mike
    January 30, 2013

    There is something really not right with Lopez. There is an obsessive quality to his writing on this topic. A few days ago, he published a lengthy formal statement calling upon the international community to intervene militarily in the United States to prevent gay marriage and gay adoption. It doesn’t read like a theatrical exercise; he really seems to believe that his statement will be taken seriously and that it is not insane.

    As for the brief, the fact that it doesn’t cite cases is not really an issue. This is a purported amicus brief and these purported amici are not claiming to have any new legal perspective to air. Whatever value they bring to the table as amici would be in their perspective on the relevant facts or public policy implications of the court’s ruling. But there is nothing in their brief that says anything new. They seem to think that simply because they are gay and are repeating the appellants’ arguments, that this bestows some value on their brief. It doesn’t. I really wonder if they properly moved for leave to file this amicus brief, or if they just went ahead and filed it without permission.

  7. Jim Burroway
    January 30, 2013

    Actually, my point wasn’t jsut that the brief didn’t cite cases, but rather that it didn’t cite facts.

  8. Timothy Kincaid
    January 30, 2013

    Now Mr. Burroway, are you suggesting that the Bible is not a encyclopedia of historical facts that can be relied upon to accurately supply dates and details of events from the past?

    Sigh, I would argue with you but my stegosaurus gets cranky if I don’t walk him.

  9. markanthony
    January 30, 2013

    Thanks for mentioning that bit about Lopez. Ive noticed it too. You can read alot of his old writings at American Thinker. There is a spit fire quality to the writing. Its very hard to follow. It seems that he had a very difficult time in his teens and twenties, and he still carries around alot of anger from it.

  10. John D
    January 30, 2013


    If you want to file an amicus brief, you need to either be a lawyer (Marjorie Phelps, for example, is counsel on the Westboro brief) or work with a lawyer (as these three did).

    If you’re thinking of submitting an amicus in support of striking down Prop 8, I’d advise you to save your time.

    I just finished reading “Flagrant Conduce,” Dale Carpenter’s book on “Lawrence v. Texas.” One thing that hurt the Texas case was the number of crazy briefs sent in by anti-gay amici. All they did was point out how the Texas arguments were tied to animus against gay people.

  11. StraightGrandmother
    January 30, 2013

    Crap, had a really informative comment just about done, coughed moved my finger on the iPad and lost it.

Leave a Reply




Back to top
mobile desktop