Democrats: Conservavtive Ideology Constitutes "Extraordinary Circumstances"

The Washington Post ^ | 7/6/05 | Peter Baker and Charles Babington

[MamaTexan]

if as a potential juror you think a law is unjust and you can't enforce it in good conscience, you should recuse yourself from the jury.

Which would give us the rule of MEN, not of LAW...the very opposite of freedom.

Please do not disarm our country of a major weapon against tyranny because you fear the instrument of our defense!

On a side note, I believe jurors should be drawn by lottery instead of being 'selected' by *officers of the Court*. Particularly since the word 'peer' was originally intended to mean people who were acquainted with the defendant.

[FlipWilson]

I think this is great. This so called "deal" is about to be exposed for what it was, namely, no more than a dodge. McCain never thought in his wildest dreams that his "deal" would be put to the test so quickly. Right now Mr. McCain is shyting his pants because this deal will unravel and he will look like the fool he is. Buh bye Presidential ambitions(. . . .or hello Presdiential ambitions if he actually stands up and does the right thing).

If I were the President, I would nominate Janice Rogers Brown. Despite the fact that she was deemed not to be an "extraordinary circumstance" you can bet that the dems will now say she is. That will only further make the gang of seven look like the fools they are.

[goodolemr]

I actually have a theory that McCain would love to pull out the nuke card. That is, if he is interested in running for President. It would, in his mind, help him get back in the good graces of the party base.

[zebrahead]

I hear you on that. McCain, Graham, and Co. would like nothing better than to be able to have an excuse to break the deal. After, McCain is an opportunist if nothing else. And he does want to be President some day. No worries from me, though. If the seven Dems break their part of the deal, the nuclear option can and will be used to get Bush's guy on the Supreme Court. We already have the votes to do it if the Dems break the deal and they know it.

[Cyber Liberty]

I've voted Libertarian in protest the last two times.

Me Too.

[Steve_Seattle]

"Which would give us the rule of MEN, not of LAW...the very opposite of freedom."

It seems to me that it is jury nullification - jurors acting contrary to the written law - that would constitute "the rule of men." If there is a duly passed law that I disagree with so strongly that I think its enforcement is unjust or immoral, I would recuse myself and - perhaps - work to get the law changed through the legislative process. To me, that represents the rule of law. But to sit on a jury and and disregard the facts so as to find a person not guilty just because I disagree with the law, seems to me both dishonest (insofar as I am making a false claim about the facts and the law) and a manifestation of "the rule of men."

For example, if a law were passed prohibiting people from attending church, I would support a constitutional challenge to the law and I would recuse myself from any jury attempting to enforce such a law. I would not serve on a jury and declare someone innocent who had in fact attended church.

[krazyrep]

I actually have a theory that McCain would love to pull out the nuke card.

Then again, he'll probably pull out some lame excuse like "Even though the Democrats are filibustering, changing the rules isn't the answer. The President should withdraw the nomination and consult with the Senate on appropriate candidates."

To be blunt, the McCain Mutineers will look for any excuse to go along with their Democrat friends like Chucky Schumer - as Lindsay Graham is doing already.