Excellent point by the author.
she’d never make it through voir dire.
bttt
Bzzzt! Wrong.
The juror's second duty is to judge the law also instead of blindly following the judge's instructions and interpretation of the law. Until the 1895 Supreme Court decision in Sparf v United States federal judges had to tell juries that they had that right.
Interesting proposition, could Sonia Sotomayor serve as a juror, in a panel supposedly made up of the peers of the defendant?
We saw how well tht worked with OJ Simpson, when the “jury nullification” principle was fully exposed.
Very good point of view.
In regards to the title: Would hussein qualify for national security clearances?
Thank you very much for choosing to post this commentary in News/Activism as opposed to Bloggers & Personal. First rate blogs like this should be posted as News/Activism, IMHO.
Asking the right question is a powerful thing. Very telling.
Henceforth, when summoned for jury duty, I will make it a point to tell the judge that I feel “empathy” for the victim.
Excellent. Sometimes the obvious needs to be pointed out.
The hearings should not be on whether Sotomayor should be elevated to the Supreme Court, but whether she should be impeached. Does no Republican have the courage to introduce papers of impeachment?
No, and she doesn't qualify to be a Judge either. She'd never win an election by the people with the public statements she's made.
You have two duties as a jury. Your first duty is to decide the facts from the evidence in the case. This is your job, and yours alone. Your second duty is to apply the law that I give you to the facts. You must follow these instructions, even if you disagree with them......instructions that are in direct contradiction to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, yet used in the courts there anyway (and why I am never called to serve on a jury):
[...]in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases. --PA Const. Art. 1, § 7And, of course, there's good ol' John Jay...
"It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you [juries] have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy"--John Jay, first Chief Justice of the United States
However, I do wonder if a Latina Woman, with the incredible experience and rich heritage that goes with that, would also make a better judge than an old Black Man, or a seasoned White Woman.
Awesome, awesome article. Simple and direct. and NO, she would NOT qualify as a jurist, let alone a judge. she has been reversed 60% of the time herself, so other judges think she isn’t fair.
“Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?”
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
No, but then we shouldn’t have Senators, Representatives, Presidents who swear to preserve, protect, defend the Constitution after campaigning on promises to violate the constitution. Our whole system has become a mockery because the few who still believe in the values of the founders are unable or unwilling to take action. We should have at least two hundred impeachments in progress at the federal level right now.
ITEM She identifies herself as Puerto Rican first, even though she was born in the USA. Why does an American citizen cop a latino speech inflection (if she doesn't have a hidden agenda)?
ITEM In a College Thesis, Sotomayor Appeared to support Puerto Rican Independence. Did Soto have anything to do with Pres Clinton pardoning the FALN----violent Puerto Rican terrorists who bombed US installations? (Pardoned----so that then-Senate candidate Hillary could harvest the NY latino vote).
ITEM She is a member of the racial-thought police----La Raza. They are demanding "respect and fairness." That's latino for "shut up----close your eyes, ears and mouths........or else we'll get physical."
ITEM She is looking more and more like a mouthpiece for racial minority seeking to exert raw power over the rest of us---to marginalize the majority-----something one finds in failed Third World satraps.
ITEM The fact that she and her crowd do not understand a democracy is based on three co-equal branches of government is grounds for showing her the road.
ITEM Being Hispanic is not a criteria for seating a Supreme Court Justice. More is being made about her race than her actual judicial record.
ITEM She has the same disdain for America and it’s citizenry as evidenced by Obama.
ITEM She is a frightening candidate in the Thomas Jefferson sense: "When people fear the government, we have tyranny. When the government fears the people, that is freedom."
obumpa