Posted on 10/28/2006 1:26:56 PM PDT by FreedomCalls
Oh GOd, another idiot who thinks that's because it's a legal thread he can be rude under the guise of making devastating points or asking penetrating questions.
Yes, you blockhead, I don't know. That's why I said I suspect. If I knew I would have said I knew.
Come on dazzle us all some more with your forensic brilliance.
It's interesting that Bork is very against jury nullification -- pretty much on the same grounds that he's against activist courts.
I haven't thought about it as much as I should, but if I had to choose I'd say he's right about activist courts, but wrong about the unique role of the jury in our tradition of jurisprudence.
Thanks again.
"Jurors have always had the ability to ignore the judge, ignore the law and acquit, jury nullification serves as an important check on government power." ..... University of Alberta law professor Sanjeev Anand ...Edmonton Sun January 15, 2006
L
Which is the main reason I thought he was a terrible choice for SCOTUS.
L
You radical, you! ;)
What does Nino think?
I know.
Where's the link?
Where's the link?
Find it yourself. That ought to keep you busy for at least a week.
L
Bluff called, you fold.
Predictable.
Not too bright are you.
L
LOL. You're the one who can't tell the difference between Canada and the United States.
L
You're the one who couldn't manage to post it. Your quote came sans link.
BTW, the quote didn't say Canada was the United States either.
Poor you.
I'm a bit concerned about giving you another link to work with considering that you haven't really demonstrated a mastery of the first one. But I'll do my best to walk you through the process.
Now you just put your cursor over the colored link thingy and then left click. (That's the opposite of right.)
With me so far?
Now there will be a brief introduction. Don't let the pretty flashy lights confuse you for too long. Have somebody give you a tap if necessary to restart your thought process. You might want to have an adult nearby before you start.
Once that's over, you'll enter the main page. (That's where the information is.) Then you scroll about halfway down the page.
Then feel free to move your finger along the screen (that's the thing you're looking at right now btw) until you get to the quote I posted.
Now you'll notice that this organization is Canadian. (That means they're from Canada. You know, the country that's attached to the US at the north.)
Now ordinarily it's my policy not to suffer a fool gladly. In your case I've made a slight change. I've decided not to suffer you at all.
Best of luck with the reading thing. Once you master that, try comprehension. (That means actually understanding what you read. It's hard, but I think you'll find that if you ever master it it may just come in handy.)
Best of luck. I fear you're going to need lots and lots of it.
L
That's not the American link you originally posted, that's a Canadian site.
Poor you.
I'm saying that no officer of the court should say that the jury has to find somebody guilty or innocent.
So how should an advocate make his argument to the jury? The judge refused to excuse jurors who had one kind or a problem or another with his directions. The advocates don't have the kind of mojo.
I'm not being persnickety here (at least not on purpose). Would you want to restrict defense and prosecution lawyers to language in the conditional form, as in, "If you agree with my reasoning then you must find in such and such a way ...."
If the glove don't fit you must acquit?
If he's smoking pot, convict him not.
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.