[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Sounds good to me ;)

Miller, Jeremy JMILLER at ci.albany.or.us
Wed Jun 19 16:53:11 UTC 2002


> > Even the founding fathers realized that laws could be made that were
> unjust. For this reason, they created the supreme court to 
> interpret those
> laws.
> 
> Wrong again,  for that exact reason we had a jury of peers, who were
> comprised your 12 closest neighbors.

Your statement is correct, but it doesn't make his wrong.  Both are true.


> And if they had any critical thinking skills they could be 
> trusted to use
> sound judgement;  why do you suppose they changed the system 
> a little and
> sequester the juries now?

I think this is sort of silly myself.

> Isn't this an indication that the average juror has NO 
> critical thinking
> skills?

Mmm-hmmm.  That is fairly likely the answer to the previous question.


> If you do why do you allow them to tell you what you can or 
> cannot read?
> Furthermore any law is null and void for vagueness,  and if 
> the "Supremes"
> can't agree it must be pretty damned vague, I should say.

And as such needs to be either sent back to the authors for clarification or
stricken from our lawbooks... which is supposed to be the Supreme Court's
job.

Being more than one person, of course there may be disagreements.  But
better that then getting stuck with one nutcase that always screws
everything up.  (As can happen a lot in court... that's why there are
appeals to higher courts, with a multiple judge panel at the top that stops
the buck.  Can one impeach a judge, according to our Constitition?  I don't
remember seing that one could.  Someone should look.)

Far from foolproof, but it does increase the odds of someone in the position
having a clue and hopefully weilding it.





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list