 | | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Check. OK, how about a "duty" that it's OK to shirk, but that if you don't shirk, gets you something extra, some privilege (I just can't spell that word!) you'd normally not get. (c.f. _Starship Troopers_ in which only those that served in the (...) (22 years ago, 24-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Richie Dulin
|
| | | | (...) Fair enough. Duty is not the word I would have chosen, but I would more or less agree with you on this, although I'm not sure that attaching something extra or some privilege is appropriate. (...) I've seen terms defined on LUGNET which are a (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Depends on who you ask. Most judges will tell you it is not your place as a juror to weigh the justness of the law, that your duty is only to the validity and applicability of the facts and that you have no power to judge (nullify) law. (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Hey, that's neat! Do you know if this has happened in a major case in modern times? Dave! (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again! —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | (...) What the...?! Dave!, you have taken part in these discussion about Jury nullification before -- I have to assume you know all about it. Search "Jury nullification" in this newsgroup, both Larry and I have discussed it many times before (...) (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | Subject line changed in deference to Tom Stangl's request for topic purity! 8^) (...) Hey, give me a break--it was late! 8^0) Dave! FUT OT.fun (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Jocular self-deprecation (Re: Those stupid conservative (was liberal) judges are at it again!) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Weirdly, the web view truncated this topic to just "Jocular self-deprecation judges are at it again!)" in the top five list on the right. Can that be fixed? It made me smile but other truncation may cause confusion. (22 years ago, 25-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.admin.suggestions)
|
| | | | |
