Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: Roscoe
Admit it, you didn't read the decision, did you? If you had, you wouldn't have made such an uninformed comment.
390 posted on 03/13/2003 10:05:46 AM PST by savedbygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 387 | View Replies ]


To: savedbygrace
Is there a point to your spinning? If you think the decision supports your position, try to explain why.
391 posted on 03/13/2003 10:09:12 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies ]

To: savedbygrace
While we're waiting:

"This line of cases establishes the general proposition that a juror may not be challenged for cause based on his views about capital punishment unless those views would prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath. The State may insist however, that jurors will consider and decide the facts impartially and conscientiously apply the law as charged by the court." -- Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38 (1980)

394 posted on 03/13/2003 10:18:48 AM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies ]

To: savedbygrace

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.

409 posted on 03/13/2003 11:32:11 AM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 390 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson