Skip to main content

View Diary: HUGE Prop. 8 case news - Rekers peripherally involved UPDATE (189 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the tests (11+ / 0-)

    in court for the reliability of the 'scientific' evidence used by an expert witness have to be met, or the information isn't science that can be relied upon.  If your expert bases his opinion on unverifiable science, he essentially can't testify as an expert and his testimony will have no probative value.   Since the testimony was already given, there could be a motion to revisit the issue perhaps to show the existence of new evidence that essentially impeaches the expert's testimony, not in the usual sense of lying, but that the science failed to stand up to the Daubert test (shorthand name for science evidence test).

    If you claim that there was no unconstitutional animus behind the act because there is science to support the claims about homosexuality, and the science disappears, all you have is prejudice not based in fact.  Hence, an unconstitutional distinction between individual's rights not based on a state interest.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (136)
  • Community (67)
  • Bernie Sanders (49)
  • Elections (36)
  • Hillary Clinton (29)
  • 2016 (28)
  • Culture (28)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Science (24)
  • Civil Rights (24)
  • Environment (24)
  • Law (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Labor (19)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Spam (17)
  • Barack Obama (17)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (17)
  • International (15)
  • White House (15)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site