Defendants’ Petition for Certiorari in Milward – DENIED

The Supreme Court reported this morning that the defendants petition for certiorari in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Milward, Docket No.. 11-316, was denied.

While unfortunate for the parties involved, the denial was not a surprise.  The Supreme Court does not sit to review factual errors and distortions, such as those that pervaded the First Circuit’s decision below.  Furthermore, most of the justices are at sea when it comes to scientific evidence, as shown by Justice Sotomayor’s incredible discussion of causal concepts, in Mattrix Initiatives v. Siracusano, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1309 (2011).  SeeMatrixx Unloaded.”

Indeed, there were great dangers involved in seeking this discretionary review in the Supreme Court.  As I have written, the SKAPP-a-lites have larded up the most recent edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence with language that could easily be marshaled in favor of a loosey-goosey interpretation of Rule 702.  See Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence v3.0 – Disregarding Study Validity in Favor of the ‘Whole Gamish’.”

What is needed is not Supreme Court review, but a thorough dismemberment of the philosophy behind the Circuit’s decision in Milward, and the wayward, or the Milward, trend towards anything goes in the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific EvidenceSeeMilward — Unhinging the Courthouse Door to Dubious Scientific Evidence.”

It was shame and humiliation that drove the Daubert decision in the Supreme Court, and ultimately the revision of Federal Rule of Evidence 702.   When the Courts suddenly realized that the scientific community was looking at their aberrant judgments,  they changed up.  The silicone gel breast implant litigation illustrates the phenomenon of how the courts react to the medical and scientific communties’ condemnation.

The Milward decision calls for a similar collateral attack on the unprincipled use of so-called “weight of the evidence” thinking.  Some evidence, after all, is a mere feather’s weight, and not an appropriate basis for a scientific conclusion.

FW: Defendants’ Petition for Certiorari in Milward – DENIED

Inbox
x

Nathan A. Schachtman
11:37 AM (12 minutes ago)
to me

From: Nathan A. Schachtman [mailto:Nathan@SchachtmanLaw.com]
Sent: Monday, January 09, 2012 11:22 AM
To: ‘Nathan A. Schachtman’
Subject: Defendants’ Petition for Certiorari in Milward – DENIED

The Supreme Court reported this morning that the defendants petition for certiorari in U.S. Steel Corp. v. Milward, Docket No.. 11-316, was denied.

While unfortunate for the parties involved, the denial was not a surprise.  The Supreme Court does not sit to review factual errors and distortions, such as those that pervaded the First Circuit’s decision below.  Furthermore, most of the justices are at sea when it comes to scientific evidence, as shown by Justice Sotomayor’s incredible discussion of causal concepts, in Mattrix Initiatives v. Siracusano, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 1309 (2011).  See “Matrixx Unloaded.”

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1156.pdf

http://schachtmanlaw.com/matrixx-unloaded/

Indeed, there were great dangers involved in seeking this discretionary review in the Supreme Court.  As I have written, the SKAPP-a-lites have larded up the most recent edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence with language that could easily be marshaled in favor of a loosey-goosey interpretation of Rule 702.

What is needed is not Supreme Court review, but a thorough dismemberment of the philosophy behind the Circuit’s decision in Milward, and the wayward, or the Milward, trends towards anything goes in the latest edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence.  See “Milward — Unhinging the Courthouse Door to Dubious Scientific Evidence.”

http://schachtmanlaw.com/milward-unhinging-the-courthouse-door-to-dubious-scientific-evidence/

The courts need to be made to feel ashamed of their judgments with respect to scientific matters.

It was the shame and humiliation of Bendectin litigation and others that moved the Court in Daubert, and later Joiner.

Reply
Forward
Click here to Reply or Forward

Ads – Why this ad?
Bancarrota – Tarifa Plana Mas de 285 comentarios.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Comments are closed.