If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   SCOTUS to us all: suck it twice   (nytimes.com) divider line 10
    More: Scary, U.S. Supreme Court, negligent homicide, supreme court rules, retrial, majority opinion, Stephen G. Breyer, seriousness, Anthony M. Kennedy  
•       •       •

35909 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 May 2012 at 6:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Funniest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-24 05:26:00 PM
7 votes:
If the guy had incorporated himself we wouldn't be having this conversation
2012-05-24 06:44:02 PM
2 votes:

caddisfly: Who are the greenlighting mods that have a hard on for dissing the judiciary lately? Most of the headlines misconstrue the facts, many of them outright misstate them. What's worse, in each link that blames the judiciary the proper result appears to have been reached. In this case a mistrial was declared and no verdict was ever issued. If anything the trial judge, not the SCOTUS, should have asked the jury to reach a formal verdict on the capital offense before declaring the mistrial on the remaining charges. The trial judge didn't so the SCOTUS found no acquittal.

Don't hate on the judiciary just because you don't/can't understand it.


Let's see....

Disrespect the judge.
Misconstrue facts.
Misstate facts.
Blame the judge.

I know why the mods greenlight these threads. THE MODS ARE LAWYERS!!1!
2012-05-24 07:10:08 PM
1 votes:
What? Another pro-authority decision by an activist Roberts Court committed to tearing down what few real protections criminal defendants have after the Rehnquist years?

The hell you say!

Justice John "I've never met an authority figure I wouldn't bend over backwards to protect" Roberts.
2012-05-24 07:04:56 PM
1 votes:

Homicider: DoctorCal: bugontherug: The judge declared a mistrial.

Yes. On the basis of the jury being hung on the lesser charge. He didn't allow them to properly dispose of the greater charge (for which some people inexplicably want to blame the jury, as if they are running the show).

Full. On. Dickery.

The last time I saw logic that tortured, it was experiencing Pon Farr. On one hand, you're claiming that the jury has the right to unilaterally decide what other, future juries are and aren't allowed to do, and on the other you're claiming that the jury was completely powerless, and the victim of "dickery" by the judge. I wish I could comprehend the reasoning behind your statements, but it's starting to sound more and more like your dad was a Judge, and you're working through some sort of childhood rage issues.

Again: If the jury wanted to hand down a verdict, they should have done so. What they DON'T get to do is say "We're not going to make a decision, but we are going to insist that juries after us not be allowed to make their own decision regarding the Capital murder charge." You seem to just be blithely ignoring the fact that nobody was stopping the jury from giving a verdict. They decided not to give one.


no, what the judge did that was dickish was call the whole damned thing off because they jury needed more time to deliberate and he needed to get home in time for matlock. i'd be more worried about a miscarriage of justice if a jury came back in UNDER 6 hours in a murder trial
2012-05-24 06:58:29 PM
1 votes:

fusillade762: I'm still pissed they decided the police can strip search you for any reason even if you're not charged with a crime. And just in time for the summer protest season.


Would you be okay with it if cops could strip search hot bikini babes at the beach for no reason?
2012-05-24 06:57:50 PM
1 votes:

DoctorCal: bugontherug: The judge declared a mistrial.

Yes. On the basis of the jury being hung on the lesser charge. He didn't allow them to properly dispose of the greater charge (for which some people inexplicably want to blame the jury, as if they are running the show).

Full. On. Dickery.


The last time I saw logic that tortured, it was experiencing Pon Farr. On one hand, you're claiming that the jury has the right to unilaterally decide what other, future juries are and aren't allowed to do, and on the other you're claiming that the jury was completely powerless, and the victim of "dickery" by the judge. I wish I could comprehend the reasoning behind your statements, but it's starting to sound more and more like your dad was a Judge, and you're working through some sort of childhood rage issues.

Again: If the jury wanted to hand down a verdict, they should have done so. What they DON'T get to do is say "We're not going to make a decision, but we are going to insist that juries after us not be allowed to make their own decision regarding the Capital murder charge." You seem to just be blithely ignoring the fact that nobody was stopping the jury from giving a verdict. They decided not to give one.
2012-05-24 06:55:25 PM
1 votes:
I don't know why the jury couldn't have read the verdicts they agreed upon then have the judge declare a mistrial on the charges not agreed upon.
2012-05-24 06:39:58 PM
1 votes:
Damn, I was hoping for a Cupp thread...

www.theblaze.com
2012-05-24 06:28:38 PM
1 votes:
I hope there is a Hell, because if there is, Bush will find himself there for a very very long time.
2012-05-24 06:25:38 PM
1 votes:
I would say that the problem is that the defendant was charged with 4 different crimes. The prosecution should figure out what they want to charge a person with and then proceed. Why not just charge the person with the entire collection of every law in the code book and see what sticks? Everybody is guilty of something, right? Lazy.
 
Displayed 10 of 10 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report