[CutePuppy]

Or at least, composed from equal numbers from either party, and independents - only then it could it be even considered a "jury of one's peers".

Otherwise, depending on the political makeup of a city (LA, DC, Austin, San Francisco...) on political class could feel protected and get away with real crimes (OJ, Sandy Berger) while others can be "politilegally" harassed (Plamegate, Iran-Contra)

That's why Starr could never bring charges against Hillary, and why likely Sandy Berger got off easy with plea agreement - they would never be convicted by DC jury. And it's the same reason that Fitzgerald was even continuing with his "investigation" of Armitage, er, "CIA leak case" - he was DC jury-shopping, the only place where his witch hunt had a chance to be successful and thus "vindicated".

Anybody knows where Wilson's "civil lawsuit" is being heard?

We better fix this before it's being used more and more.

[lugsoul]

So now you want one's political belief system to be a part of the qualification to be on a jury?

I used to think there were people on this forum who knew less then you do about our judicial system. I don't think that anymore.