Ohio university pays out $400,000 to Christian professor 'for violating his First Amendment Rights'

[dpibel]

46. Outcome-oriented opinion

Last edited Thu Apr 21, 2022, 03:56 AM - Edit history (1)

For those who find the recitation of facts here damning, please do take into account that this is a review of a summary dismissal, not of a trial.

As stated in the opinion, the standard of review requires the appellate court to accept as true all facts in the complaint.

So when you're reading about how awful and snotty and mean and stuff the university Nazis were, keep in mind that you're getting precisely the story the plaintiff told, without rebuttal from the defendants.

IOW, the statement of facts here is not based on testimony. It's based on what Meriwether said in his complaint. No surprise then, that he seems a terribly victimized True Believer.

Not going to do a blow-by-blow. The principle defect in this opinion is the court's pretense that Meriwether's refusal to use the student's preferred pronouns was, in fact, communicative, pedagogical speech, associated with a matter of important public consequence.

But there's no indication of any kind that the subject matter of the course had anything to do with gender identity. Thus, the only thing being communicated, or subject to discussion was "I don't wanna use your pronouns."

The case could go either way, which is frequently the nature of this type of dispute.

But for those in this thread pretending that this was an obvious slam-dunk for Meriwether, I think you're really not quite up with what's going in in the opinion.

And, I must point out: The panel was one judge appointed by Shrub and two appointed by Trump. And, sure, even a blind pig sometimes finds a truffle.

This is not. It's a pretty swell illustration of a court deciding what the outcome is and then figuring out why.