Why are so many people taking the word of an extremely vocal dissenter to the ITC decision at face value? Pinkert does make a case, but he does not seem to accept that the other five members of the panel disagreed with him.
Certainly, sometimes the dissenting view may turn out to be the right one in hindsight, but rarely on a 5:1 decision. What exactly makes Pinkert, and those supporting his view, think that he has some specific insight into the law that should be preferred over five other people hearing exactly the same evidence? Remember, exceptional claims demand exceptional evidence, and being the one dissenter out of a panel of six means that his view requires a hell of a lot of evidence ...
... but then, this is a country where almost a third of the population believe in creationism. What does evidence have to do with it?