Posted on 03/12/2003 7:27:40 AM PST by The FRugitive
Question begging. It says nothing to support your position, which is why you didn't quote it.
Wrong again. For example, in California potential jurors are usually required by the judge to take an oath to follow his instructions and to apply the law as charged.
So what?
Challenge it in federal court. That should be good for a laugh.
We granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, 444 U.S. 990 (1979), limited to the following questions:
"(1) Is the doctrine of Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 , applicable to the bifurcated procedure employed by Texas in capital cases? (2) If so, did the exclusion from jury service in the present case of prospective jurors pursuant to Texas Penal Code 12.31 (b) violate the doctrine of Witherspoon v. Illinois, supra?" 2
Also, the decision was written like this:
We repeat that the State may bar from jury service those whose beliefs about capital punishment would lead them to ignore the law or violate their oaths. But in the present case Texas has applied 12.31 (b) to exclude jurors whose only fault was to take their responsibilities with special seriousness or to acknowledge honestly that they might or might not [448 U.S. 38, 51] be affected. It does not appear in the record before us that these individuals were so irrevocably opposed to capital punishment as to frustrate the State's legitimate efforts to administer its constitutionally valid death penalty scheme. Accordingly, the Constitution disentitles the State to execute a sentence of death imposed by a jury from which such prospective jurors have been excluded.
The judgment of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is consequently reversed to the extent that it sustains the imposition of the death penalty.
IOW, very narrow, not broad.
We repeat that the State may bar from jury service those whose beliefs about capital punishment would lead them to ignore the law or violate their oaths.
The state may bar jurors who would nullify laws.
To continue with your quote:
But, in the present case, Texas has applied §12.31(b) to exclude jurors whose only fault was to take their responsibilities with special seriousness or to acknowledge honestly that they might or might not [448 U.S. 51] be affected.
"Special seriousness" isn't jury nullification and your quote offers zero support for your position.
Admit it, you didn't read the decision, did you? If you had, you wouldn't have made such an uninformed comment.
You err in assuming at least a modicum of integrity and honesty. If at first glance it appears to support the status quo it's useful and can be taken out of context no mater how deceptive or dishonest. A blatant and obvious modus operandi, I might add. Ever time a person does it they further discredit themselves. You're responding to, and I'm referring to, the very bottom of the barrel.
I can see the difference between a distinction and a distraction. You can't refute the decision, so you're trying to stick a tag on it.
Individuals who would engage in nullification of the law have no "right" to be jurors and may be excluded from service, no matter how you try to avoid addressing that point.
Still begging.
There's a few possibilities.
1. To enhance people's view of themselves in juxtaposition to such obvious losers.
2. Some of the libertarian concepts and ideas are so compelling that there needs to be an opposing side and even the obvious losers provide that service. That speaks more about the lack of value in the other political parties than the losers themselves. I mean, if there's an imbalance that requires keeping even the most obvious losers on board perhaps the balance that's being sought is out of kilter. Harboring obvious losers is not conducive to attaining the best -- it hinders it.
That they consistently fail in the marketplace of ideas and draw less than one percent of the vote.
Frivolous lawsuits fail in federal court because they are without merit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.