Changes

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary.  It is NOT.  Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter.  Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal.  District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts.  That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!   

Further, you state that fees were awarded as if that were extraordinary.  It is NOT.  Fees are often awarded to the victorious party, and $2m is not an extraordinary sum, either, in a complex litigation matter.  Finally, you cite again to the Discovery Institute in claiming that the Discovery Institute case opinion contained 90% of the ACLU's brief, which is (1) false - the only copies were in regard to the statement of facts, not the legal analysis, and (2) misleading, insofar as it suggests that that is not normal.  District Judges often state their agreement with one party's idea of the facts.  That's WHAT JUDGES DO in deciding a case!!   

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.

Insofar as these glaring errors existed, the text of the article has been modified.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 18:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)