Posted on 03/21/2009 7:41:56 AM PDT by Publius
You’re kidding right? George Bailey lent money to people he KNEW were going to pay it back. Like the cab driver. George knew he was a hard worker and kept his promises. That’s a low risk. No one (at least as shown in the movie) in that fictional town was a welfare bum. Well, maybe the hottie, Violet, but George only gave her some of his PERSONAL money. It was old Potter who saw a chance to literally LOOT George when he stole the bank’s money from the old foolish uncle.
I’ve been posting that for a while. Every time a stupid new law is made. Like getting a bikini wax is now illegal in some state. Why? Who wasted time thinking up such a law?
Upon reflection, I realized that I didn’t really answer your question in my previous post.
If citizens really understood the powers they have as jurors or the law required judges instruct them as to those powers courtrooms would be vastly different places. There would be, IMHO, far fewer jury trials for one thing.
You fellows might want to do some research on the Fully Informed Jury Association and their treatment by judges and prosecutors.
And that principle (jury nullification) was at work in Howard Roark’s trial in The Fountainhead.
How about that book for our next cook club selection.
Kirk
The reason that I mentioned jury nullification is to point out that all of our options have not yet been exercised.
An example would be the refusal of a fully informed jury to convict a person of illegal firearm possession even though the letter of the law had been violated. If the possession had nothing to do with the commission or intent of a crime, is it conscionable to convict?
As far as fewer jury trials, I believe it could work either way. Some may think that they have a better chance with a jury unbound by statute law. I believe though (as I think our founders did) that the majority of jurors would be aware that they have to live in the same society as the person on trial once released.
In Atlas Shrugged, so far, there does not seem to be any checks to the powers that be. Hank Rearden only grudgingly had a lobbyist in Washington and even then he didn't keep informed about the direction of government. This seems to be a character flaw in that he is too focused on the production of his metal and not fully aware of the impact of the social changes that are occurring. Rearden certainly has the financial ability to fight but chooses not to.
Thanks for the suggestion!
I have been aware of FIJA for many years now but will refresh my acquaintance as you have suggested.
Point well made and taken.however that option has been exercised periodically and often not for the reasons you or I would suggest it should have been. (Can you say O.J. Simpson?)
In this coming Saturday's chapter, we're going to run into one particular check. And we're going to just barely touch on another, from which a later chapter is named.
Publius,
My wife and I finally caught up with the group! Woo hoo! She read to her kids and family so much out loud growing up that I decided to read it out loud to catch up, since the logistics of trading a single copy of the book didn’t work for me. What I’ve found is that it helps me to concentrate and not lapse off during some of the less interesting passages and I often get editorial commentary from her while reading. So that’s working out well. And she enjoys kicking back and listening, so it’s a win-win.
I had some commentary on some of last week’s topics. Is the proper etiquette to put those back in last week’s thread or has everyone moved on from there and we’re putting all comments into this week?
I’ll get back to the current topics in another post.
Great idea and great job you’re doing with this!
Ted
Place your comments in the thread on that particular chapter. A whole lot of people will be playing catch-up like yourselves.
More likely just didn't care. The market has gotten distorted enough so the consequences for bad or short sighted decisions fall upon others, so what the heck?
Geez, if ever there were an Orwellian statement.
It's not rape if they get paid.
Ahh... So, then I must've imagined that Rand wrote it.
It's more than a personal belief. It's a known and established fact. SCOTUS's take seems to be "Yes, nullification is a right of a juror. However, as an individual citizen, he is on top of the Constitutional heap and has the duty to know what his rights are. Therefore, a judge is under no obligation to spell it out for him."
I made a mistake in my post. It is Angelo Mozilo not “Anthony Mozillo”. No coffee before posting, but the basic message is understandable.
This is the same liberal supporter Angilo Mozilo who had the “Friends of Angelo” financing to offer great rates to liberals like Christopher Dodd. The stockholders got the shaft when his libtard social engineering plan failed.
I loved this bizarre statement. It's kind of like saying that actually scoring math tests creates an environment where stupid people who can't do math are subject to being "disproportionately affected". Which, sadly, has actually been said. That other part about discriminating in the mortgage approval process against those who won't make their mortgage payments is just too surreal to even comment on.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.