http://www.dailycamera.com/news/2009/apr/02/ward-churchill-trial-blog-jury-university-colorado/
Michael Yates: "... if it is true that 'A court of equity is a court of conscience, and whatever, therefore, is unconscionable is odious in its sight,' then surely the judge has to do the right thing."
And here I thought, in my amateur legal observer way, that the purpose of a judge in civil cases was to rein in juries, who are just too darn democratic and threatening to good order; or, for appeals judges in civil cases, to overturn or to drastically reduce large jury awards. Am I wrong? ;) I predict the judge awards Churchill some cash, maybe enough to cover back pay, and tells him, "Say bye-bye to U-Colorado." Politely, of course.
And if I (again, in my amateur way) am reading the following unconscionable- and odious-appearing law right, if the university offered Churchill even an insulting monetary settlement before trial, he might be screwed:
http://completedefeasance.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/co-senate-republicans-apoplectic-over-hb-1020/
On 4/2/09, MICHAEL YATES <mikedjyates at msn.com> wrote:
>
> I don't see how the judge cannot award Churchill backpay and reinstatement. Isn't
>
> a principle of remedy in civil cases "make whole"--to put the agrieved party back to where they
>
> would have been but for the actions of the other party? And if it is true that
>
> "A court of equity is a court of conscience, and whatever, therefore, is unconscionable is odious in its sight,"
> then surely the judge has to do the right thing.
>
>
>
> Michael Yates
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>