Big Government Elites Steal Another of Our Rights

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Oct 6, 2008
124,898
60,271
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
Among the worst of the crimes committed against the America, as it was founded, is the refusal to allow the people to exercise power that is ours......

......and hand it to the government.


Here's why they do it:
1. "... there’s a tendency among bureaucrats, politicians, academics, and other members of the New Class to convince the people to hand over the major decisions of their lives to the “experts.”These experts aren’t all in the government, but they all collude with government to convince people that the experts have all the answers and that the people need to hand the reins over to them. They will tell us what to eat, what to drive,what to think.

It’s an approach that puts politics before economics. Because it is an attempt to politicize peoples’ lives.”
Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review





2. The same truth applies to the 'experts' called politicians, and jurists, and lawyers.

For the reason stated in the first paragraph, courts instruct juries that they must follow the dictates of a law, as specified by the court.


Such as this:

"The judge will point out that his or her instructions contain the interpretation of the relevant laws that govern the case, and that jurors are required to adhere to these laws in making their decision, regardless of what the jurors believe the law is or ought to be. In short, the jurors determine the facts and reach a verdict, within the guidelines of the law as determined by the judge. "How Courts Work | Public Education


This is typical of the sort of indoctrination by Progressives and Liberals, and contains the sorts of lie that infects our education system: the last thing Progressives and Liberals can allow is persons to think for themselves.





3. But there is a ray of hope. In New Hampshire, a bill was passed reminding jurors of their unalienable right.

"...a billthat would require courts to instruct jurors about jury nullification — the jurors’ power to refuse to convict even when they think all the elements of the crime have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt ...:

'In all criminal proceedings the court shall inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.

At the request of the defendant or the defendant’s attorney, the court shall instruct the jury as follows:

If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether the state has proved any one or more of the elements of the crime charged, you must find the defendant not guilty.

However if you find that the state has proved all the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the
defendant guilty.


Even if you find that the state has proved all of the elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt, you may still find that based upon the facts of this case a guilty verdict will yield an unjust result, and you may find the defendant not guilty.'
New Hampshire House Passes Jury Nullification Bill | Eugene Volokh


Are we sensing the winds of change?
 
One part the fuhrer, one part the Pope, the inevitable return of the great white dope...


If you do not follow the guidelines you dope, then the case will be dismissed..It has nothing to do with a political perspective, and everything to do with rhetorical procession in a court of law..
 
This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.
 
This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.
She misses her progressive Reagan...She still prays to his statue...
 
This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.


Word, words, words.....

You may feel you fit into the category of folks who must follow orders....and you may be good at it.


I rely on native intelligence, and my own judgment (I chose that as the operative term).



BTW....wait until you see who agrees with me.
 
4. "....[jurors] may conclude that they should find the defendant guilty even when they think that would yield an unjust result, but that they may find him not guilty — even though they should find him guilty — and would then have to reconcile the force of the “should” and the “may” in their minds; but I suspect that most people wouldn’t look for subtleties like that.

In 2012, the New Hampshire legislature passed a statutethat simply says,

'In all criminal proceedings the court shall permit the defense to inform the jury of its right to judge the facts and the application of the law in relation to the facts in controversy.'


Some apparently thought that this would itself call for courts to instruct the jury about the power of jury nullification — or at least not instruct a jury that it should convict if the prosecution proves its case."
New Hampshire House Passes Jury Nullification Bill | Eugene Volokh
 
Jury Nullification is a fact but should not be "recognized" by statute.

Judges interpret the law and juries the facts. When, in the jury's opinion, they disagree with the judge, they will render an appropriate judgement.

PC has no native intelligence, only her reactions to a world she perceives though her own emotional filters.
 
This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.


Word, words, words.....

You may feel you fit into the category of folks who must follow orders....and you may be good at it.


I rely on native intelligence, and my own judgment (I chose that as the operative term).



BTW....wait until you see who agrees with me.
you can't copy and paste a jury verdict. you would be out of your element.
 
One part the fuhrer, one part the Pope, the inevitable return of the great white dope...


If you do not follow the guidelines you dope, then the case will be dismissed..It has nothing to do with a political perspective, and everything to do with rhetorical procession in a court of law..


False.

But- have no fear!
I am here, and your education will continue apace.
 
This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.
She misses her progressive Reagan...She still prays to his statue...



You dope!

My mirror is where I genuflect.
 
This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.
She misses her progressive Reagan...She still prays to his statue...



You dope!

My mirror is where I genuflect.
Bruises on both or one knee only?
 
This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.


Word, words, words.....

You may feel you fit into the category of folks who must follow orders....and you may be good at it.


I rely on native intelligence, and my own judgment (I chose that as the operative term).



BTW....wait until you see who agrees with me.
you can't copy and paste a jury verdict. you would be out of your element.



Did you have a problem with the method of presenting material known as cut and paste?

What could that be?


Or....is it the usual Liberal attempt to ignore the facts that they cannot deny?

Is that it?
 
This is pure idiocy. The REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE write and pass the criminal laws. BY DEFINITION, those laws codify the "will of the people." To instruct a jury of retirees, government workers, and unemployed people that they can ignore the law if they don't like where it leads them is...pure idiocy.


Word, words, words.....

You may feel you fit into the category of folks who must follow orders....and you may be good at it.


I rely on native intelligence, and my own judgment (I chose that as the operative term).



BTW....wait until you see who agrees with me.
"Intuition transcends the limitations of reason." :thup:
 
The last place you'll find justice or truth is in a courtroom. those with the most money win. those with the most money can bankrupt the opposition and therefore also win.

I don't think jury nullification is a particularly good idea either, however.

the court system is as broken and corrupt as Washington, IMO, but just letting people do whatever they want isn't the answer.

loser pays is a better answer. equality in resources for opposing sides would be nice also, although I don't see a way to implement that....
 
The jury could still find 'not guilty' even in the first example of instructions. It would require independent thinking on the part of the members of the jury. Aren't we all for that?
 
The last place you'll find justice or truth is in a courtroom. those with the most money win. those with the most money can bankrupt the opposition and therefore also win.

I don't think jury nullification is a particularly good idea either, however.

the court system is as broken and corrupt as Washington, IMO, but just letting people do whatever they want isn't the answer.

loser pays is a better answer. equality in resources for opposing sides would be nice also, although I don't see a way to implement that....


Hmmmm......

So....if this is the case.....once the elites write a law, the outcome of any case will go just the way they wish.....unless jurors sense this and refuse to be bound by the strictures placed on them.

I have seen judges simply set aside jury decisions.
 
The jury could still find 'not guilty' even in the first example of instructions. It would require independent thinking on the part of the members of the jury. Aren't we all for that?


"... independent thinking on the part of the members of the jury. Aren't we all for that?"

Silly boy!

Of course that is not what Lock-Step Liberalism dictates.
 
Closer, and closer to rectitude in the judicial system.


5. "But in State v. Paul(2014), the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that the 2012 law spoke only to what the defense lawyer can say, not to what the judge must say, and that the statute wasn’t really talking about jury nullification at all:

[Doesn't seem as though it] contains language that purports to impose upon the trial court any obligation to instruct the jury as to jury nullification.

Instead, the statute merely delineates the jury’s traditional function of determining how the law applies to the facts as it has found them, which it must necessarily perform in every case in order to reach a verdict." New Hampshire House Passes Jury Nullification Bill | Eugene Volokh




Or....is this state leaning toward giving the individuals on a jury the ability to not only judge the facts......

....but to also judge the law itself?


OMG!!!!!
We can't have that!!!!!!
 
The last place you'll find justice or truth is in a courtroom. those with the most money win. those with the most money can bankrupt the opposition and therefore also win.

I don't think jury nullification is a particularly good idea either, however.

the court system is as broken and corrupt as Washington, IMO, but just letting people do whatever they want isn't the answer.

loser pays is a better answer. equality in resources for opposing sides would be nice also, although I don't see a way to implement that....


Hmmmm......

So....if this is the case.....once the elites write a law, the outcome of any case will go just the way they wish.....unless jurors sense this and refuse to be bound by the strictures placed on them.

I have seen judges simply set aside jury decisions.


yep, this is a big problem I have with the 'justice' system, as laws can be written a certain way, money can hire the best liars to present things a certain way, and so on. It's a sham.

and I've also seen judges do whatever the hell they want and make no bones about it in open court, so I have no faith in them either. zero.

I have even less faith, however, in handing a blank check to the populace at large. they also bring their prejudices and preconceived notions to the table in that event, which isn't much better, IMO.
 

Forum List

Back
Top