- Joined
- Aug 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,873
- Reaction score
- 661
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Your're correct concerning the SCOTUS statement concerning free speech. I didn't bother to quote the full statement since I assumed most people are aware of the full statement.
You're not correct with the 99% thingy. That's the newly coined Comey definition concocted to let Hillary off the hook. But breaking the law is breaking the law. A LEO or a judge may dismiss the charge and sometimes do. That doesn't change the law.
If you knew Jack didly squat about the legal system (which you don't) you would know it was constructed to insure justice and not to insure obedience to laws. It is not a LEO or a Judge that decides guilt or innocence in the legal system, it is a jury of Citizens.
The jury has the right and the responsibility to examine both the evidence of wrongdoing and the issue of weather a crime was actually committed. If the jury determines that the law was broken, but no crime was committed they are well within their power as jurors to find the defendant not guilty. Just because a group of asshats in Washington or the State Capitol decide to pass a law does not in any way shape or form obligate the Citizens to agree that the law is just or should be enforced. The real separation of powers is that the legislators can pass laws, the judicial can interpret the laws that legislators pass, but ultimately it is the Citzens in the form of juror's who decide if in their opinion the law is just and whether or not to enforce it. The problem is the vast majority of Citizens are as ignorant as you are about the law and simply do as they are told because they are too stupid and lazy to become educated about the law, the Constitution, and their duty as Citizens.