- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PT lawyers....how fast does Stone walk on appeal?
Posted on 2/14/20 at 10:41 am to buckeye_vol
Posted on 2/14/20 at 10:41 am to buckeye_vol
quote:
Well if strong opinions about the President, one way or the other, eliminates objectivity, then I wonder if a single person could be an objective juror, let alone 12 of them. So my that logic then any of us, and any over else, would probably be lying too.
No. We’re taking about lunatic opinions by democrats. Try and keep up.
0
Posted on 2/14/20 at 10:44 am to BuckyCheese
quote:But I would bet almost everyone has a strong opinion about Trump, you know the guy who “isn’t a politician.”
A large percentage of the population doesn't follow politics at all.
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 10:46 am
Posted on 2/14/20 at 12:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Sorry I had to step away before seeing that strawman. No one is making such a presumption.
Yes, we COULD change to a presumption that every venireman is biased
Again, when was the last time you saw physicians seated in a med mal jury? It is not a rhetorical question. Perhaps it happens all the time. Does it? Your experience with juries far exceeds mine . . . . . . fortunately.
The point being, there is common exclusion based on perceived or potential bias. One presumes David Duke would never be seated in a jury overseeing the trial of a black defendant. That is a good thing. Given proper oversight, Hatfields would not be seated in a McCoy trial. That is a good thing.
What happened here is not acceptable.
A jury is supposed to be fair and impartial. Clearly in this case, what is supposed to occur did not. Obvious bias is why when caught, Ms. Hart desperately tried to remove her related contemporary digital musings.
Obvious bias is why ANDREA MITCHELL was even surprised Jackson "nonetheless dismissed objections by the defense and allowed those jurors to go forward." Mitchell's surprise there is telling, or at least should be.
It is why you correctly observed "If there were others just as bad, that may explain Tomeka’s survival."
This post was edited on 2/14/20 at 12:32 pm
Posted on 2/14/20 at 12:37 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:Strong opinions such as opposition party activism, a digital record documenting it, and running for US Congressional office in the opposition party?
Well if strong opinions about the President
quote:You wonder if any person could be less biased than opposition party activist and candidate for US Congressional office in the opposition party?
I wonder if a single person could be
You really wonder that?
Seriously?
Posted on 2/14/20 at 12:47 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:So you'd be fine if Corey Lewandowski and Steve Bannon were jurors seated in an Andrew McCabe trial that a Trump appointed Judge was overseeing?
But I would bet almost everyone has a strong opinion about Trump, you know the guy who “isn’t a politician.”
I wouldn't.
Posted on 2/14/20 at 2:23 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Well I wouldn’t care about it being a Trump-appointed judge, but considering that Trump tried to get Corey and Steve to fire McCabe’s boss (Sessions) and there undoubtedly know one another possibly have even had interacted in a personal and professional capacity. But it’s not their political views that would be the issue, it would be the specific relationships between a defendant and a juror.
So you'd be fine if Corey Lewandowski and Steve Bannon were jurors seated in an Andrew McCabe trial that a Trump appointed Judge was overseeing?
All I’m saying, and the same holds true for precious presidents, is that people have extremely strong views about presidents and a good portion of one half of the population are irrationally negative (Obama is an American-hating, Muslim loving, racist; Bush is War Criminal) and a good portion of the other half is irrationally positive (Obama was the greatest President).
So if a well-known associate of a president is on trial, how do you not avoid someone with one of these irrational viewpoints? And doesn’t that negate all of them?
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News