Huge SCOTUS Victory for Integrity of Jury Trials

Thoreau72 · May 9, 2020

Rich2018 said:
To allow dual citizenship but the prohibit them serving in public office ?

Yes. Dual citizenship is allowed, but if a person decides to run for government office, he must renounce foreign citizenship.

That common sense rule does not apply in the US.

Rich2018 · May 9, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
Yes. Dual citizenship is allowed, but if a person decides to run for government office, he must renounce foreign citizenship.

That common sense rule does not apply in the US.

Can you think of any elected government official, in the USA, with dual citizenship ?

Rich2018 · May 9, 2020

OpportunityCost said:
It was from your link....

I note you conveniently skipped over my first to points:

1. You have yet to offer anything in favor of the jury system other than it is what the founders gave us. Just because they said it was the best system means nothing
2. For you to use that as a justification really is an Appeal to Authority fallacy

If you think you have such evidence please post it, you haven't yet so I won't hold my breath now
You stated:

Most people are rejected from juries for bias

That is a claim. Prove it

You were asked:

"Do you have any supporting views/evidence that the jury system is best other than your own opinion ?"

Well do you ?

Its nature makes unlawful convictions more difficult. 12 men are harder to convince than an en banc of 3 or even a bench trial of 1.

That is 12 ordinary people plucked at random that 3 or 5 educated, skilled and experienced judges
That is a claim, prove it. Where is your evidence of that ?

Of course, because you gave opinion pieces. You didn't go after cold numbers, you went for advocacy based on opinion, why would I substitute their opinion for my own?

I am not interested in your opinion

I'm interested in evidence
Where is your evidence that jury trial are better than bench trials ?

Your own damned sources.

Where? And why are you so ready to damn them whilst refusing to provide any sources at all ?

It seems it is you who don't read sources
You certainly don't present any

Its a feature, not a bug. A unanimous guilty verdict should be a hard bar to attain.

List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia

Irrelevant_

Irrelevant.

Its contradictory to the system we have. Compulsion to vote wouldn't be exercising the right it would be mandating it.

Click to expand...

it's not, it's entirely appropriate
You obviously support mandatory jury service, do you also support mandatory voting ?

Why is it "contrary" ?

Isn't making citizens perform jury service "mandating a right" ?

Finally you begin to understand what supporting evidence looks like.

Click to expand...

I have posted a lot of supporting evidence
You have supplied only your own worthless opinion

3 are easier to convince than 12.

Click to expand...

But the "3" are not the same as the "12"

Whose opinion would you rather take on your health if you got sick, "3" doctors or "12" random people taken off the street ?

A combination of mathematics, sociology and psychology. Sir, I watched your video, please stop with the poison pills.

Click to expand...

Random word salad and complete evasion of the question. Which was:

"Why would skilled, experienced judges, educated in the law, be swayed more easily than a jury ?
In the case of a complicated tax evasion case, they 'd be MUCH harder to sway as they'd have specialized knowledge of tax law that 12 random people cannot hope to have, indeed anyone with any knowledge would be rejected as my video showed i you cared to watch it"

Why ?

...judges are authority figures. You are asking for people to relinquish their civil rights to have peers determine their guilt or innocence based upon a system that prosecutors favor. Because its easier to get convictions. Hard pass.

Click to expand...

So what if judges are figures of authority. So are policemen
Yes, I asking for the right of someone accused of a crime to be tried by jury to be removed - you are asking for it not to be, based on nothing but tradition. So replace it with a right to be tried by a bench of judges
And no, another straw man argument from you. It is to get SAFER judgement, not more convictions

I told you already, if I was guilty I would want a trial by jury because of their propensity to acquit people DESPITE the evidence (OJ Simpson, Rodney King, Caylee Anthony)
If I was innocent, I wouldn't want a trial by jury, because of their record of convicting INNOCENT men. To quote yourself - a hard pass

I want to scrap the trial by jury to AVOID the conviction of innocent men
A trial by bench does this

I have provided testimony supporting this. You have provided nothing. Zero, Null, Nada.

Where is your evidence that jury trials produce safer verdicts ?
What drives your preference for them other than the views of men 230 years ago ?

So far your only defense is just that the founders said so.
That, is an Appeal to Authority.

OpportunityCost · May 9, 2020

Rich2018 said:
I note you conveniently skipped over my first to points:

1. You have yet to offer anything in favor of the jury system other than it is what the founders gave us. Just because they said it was the best system means nothing
2. For you to use that as a justification really is an Appeal to Authority fallacy

If you think you have such evidence please post it, you haven't yet so I won't hold my breath now
You stated:

That is a claim. Prove it

You were asked:

"Do you have any supporting views/evidence that the jury system is best other than your own opinion ?"

Well do you ?

That is 12 ordinary people plucked at random that 3 or 5 educated, skilled and experienced judges
That is a claim, prove it. Where is your evidence of that ?

I am not interested in your opinion

I'm interested in evidence
Where is your evidence that jury trial are better than bench trials ?

Where? And why are you so ready to damn them whilst refusing to provide any sources at all ?

It seems it is you who don't read sources
You certainly don't present any

List of wrongful convictions in the United States - Wikipedia

Irrelevant_

it's not, it's entirely appropriate
You obviously support mandatory jury service, do you also support mandatory voting ?

Why is it "contrary" ?

Isn't making citizens perform jury service "mandating a right" ?

I have posted a lot of supporting evidence
You have supplied only your own worthless opinion

But the "3" are not the same as the "12"

Whose opinion would you rather take on your health if you got sick, "3" doctors or "12" random people taken off the street ?

Random word salad and complete evasion of the question. Which was:

"Why would skilled, experienced judges, educated in the law, be swayed more easily than a jury ?
In the case of a complicated tax evasion case, they 'd be MUCH harder to sway as they'd have specialized knowledge of tax law that 12 random people cannot hope to have, indeed anyone with any knowledge would be rejected as my video showed i you cared to watch it"

Why ?

So what if judges are figures of authority. So are policemen
Yes, I asking for the right of someone accused of a crime to be tried by jury to be removed - you are asking for it not to be, based on nothing but tradition. So replace it with a right to be tried by a bench of judges
And no, another straw man argument from you. It is to get SAFER judgement, not more convictions

I told you already, if I was guilty I would want a trial by jury because of their propensity to acquit people DESPITE the evidence (OJ Simpson, Rodney King, Caylee Anthony)
If I was innocent, I wouldn't want a trial by jury, because of their record of convicting INNOCENT men. To quote yourself - a hard pass

I want to scrap the trial by jury to AVOID the conviction of innocent men
A trial by bench does this

I have provided testimony supporting this. You have provided nothing. Zero, Null, Nada.

Where is your evidence that jury trials produce safer verdicts ?
What drives your preference for them other than the views of men 230 years ago ?

So far your only defense is just that the founders said so.
That, is an Appeal to Authority.

Click to expand...

You seem to have a pattern, you ignore points demonstrated and logically argued to create fallacies where they don't exist.

A jury trial is superior because it is harder to convince 12 people of guilt than it is 1, both mathematically and psychologically. 12 people from differing backgrounds and ages and viewpoints is a much harder burden to guilt than one man whose background will be fairly similar to the prosecutor.

You keep crabbing and whining about the Constitution, well there are ways to change the Constitution and it isn't even my main point. BTW, trial by jury originated in English law in the 8th century, not the 18th. Make of that what you will. To state this is the way its done and list reasons for why isn't an appeal to authority, its a statement that's how it is.

Rich2018 · May 9, 2020

OpportunityCost said:
You seem to have a pattern, you ignore points demonstrated and logically argued to create fallacies where they don't exist.

You seem to have an unrecognized habit of falling into logical fallacies

Which is partially explained by your inability to define any that you've accused other posters of - like the Appeal to Authority - ludicrously suggested a preference for an inquisitorial system of criminal justice by a bench of judges was evidence of this

You also have a propensity to ignore certain questions that are difficult for you to answer, so for the THIRD time:

""Do you have any supporting views/evidence that the jury system is best other than your own opinion ?"

Well do you ?

A jury trial is superior because it is harder to convince 12 people of guilt than it is 1...

Prove it

And again you make the fallacy that the intelligence, legal training and skill at questioning a witness and drawing a conclusion is the same for an experienced/skilled/legally trained judge than it is for an ordinary member of the public (and it would be at least 3 or more judges)
This has been explained to you, yet still you repeat this fallacy

It seems you are bankrupt of any other argument and are left to repetitiously parrot this excuse in lieu of any actual EVIDENCE or supporting testimony at all.

You keep crabbing and whining about the Constitution, well there are ways to change the Constitution and it isn't even my main point.

No, you are the one using the Constitution as an authority for justifying the retention of the jury system, not me
I am criticizing you for relying on a 230 year old constitution to defend the jury system

BTW, trial by jury originated in English law in the 8th century, not the 18th.

I never said the jury system did originate in the 18th century
That is just when the USA came in to being and when the Constitution was written

To state this is the way its done and list reasons for why isn't an appeal to authority, its a statement that's how it is.

I ***KNOW*** how it is

I'm arguing for a change or hadn't you noticed ?

MrWonka · May 10, 2020

Josie said:
I didn't know non-unanimous juries could convict anywhere in the country. Good call by the SC.

Maybe you should learn what the Rs are trying to do before you decide not to vote D.

Thoreau72 · May 10, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Can you think of any elected government official, in the USA, with dual citizenship ?

Schumer, Zakheim, Immanuel and quite a few others from days gone by. I'm not certain of the number, but I read some years ago it was around 12.

Rich2018 · May 10, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
Schumer, Zakheim, Immanuel and quite a few others from days gone by. I'm not certain of the number, but I read some years ago it was around 12.

Schumer as in Chuck Schumer the senate minority leader born in New York ?
What other country is he a citizen of ?

Thoreau72 · May 11, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Schumer as in Chuck Schumer the senate minority leader born in New York ?
What other country is he a citizen of ?

Israel.

Rich2018 · May 12, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
Israel.

Source ?

Chuck Schumer is Jewish, but that doesn't make him an Israeli citizen.

Thoreau72 · May 12, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Source ?

Chuck Schumer is Jewish, but that doesn't make him an Israeli citizen.

No it doesn't. Have you researched anything like "dual citizens in congress"?

I just did, and there were way more than I thought. Turns out Chuck IS a dual citizen. Which country does he support when the chips are down? If I had to bet....

89 of our Senators and Congress hold dual citizenship citizenship with Israel - Prepare For Change

Yeah, talk about meddling in our governance...nobody does it better.

TheDoctorWasIn · May 12, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
No it doesn't. Have you researched anything like "dual citizens in congress"?

I just did, and there were way more than I thought. Turns out Chuck IS a dual citizen. Which country does he support when the chips are down? If I had to bet....

89 of our Senators and Congress hold dual citizenship citizenship with Israel - Prepare For Change

Yeah, talk about meddling in our governance...nobody does it better.

Ummm... maybe you shouldn't rely on ridiculous conspiracy blogs and reddit posts?

That list is just all the Jews in Congress. None of them have Israeli citizenship.

Thoreau72 · May 13, 2020

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Ummm... maybe you shouldn't rely on ridiculous conspiracy blogs and reddit posts?

That list is just all the Jews in Congress. None of them have Israeli citizenship.

I'm sure you would know.

Rich2018 · May 13, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
No it doesn't. Have you researched anything like "dual citizens in congress"?

I just did, and there were way more than I thought. Turns out Chuck IS a dual citizen. Which country does he support when the chips are down? If I had to bet....

89 of our Senators and Congress hold dual citizenship citizenship with Israel - Prepare For Change

Yeah, talk about meddling in our governance...nobody does it better.

Let's say I am somewhat skeptical of that web page

There is no mention of Israeli citizen ship on his web page or any other biographical web page
When did he apply for Israeli citizenship for instance ?

I think you've been hoodwinked by a RW conspiracy web page

As the clown in the White House would say, that's fake news.

Rich2018 · May 13, 2020

TheDoctorWasIn said:
Ummm... maybe you shouldn't rely on ridiculous conspiracy blogs and reddit posts?

That list is just all the Jews in Congress. None of them have Israeli citizenship.

Yes, let's say it's anti Jewish and brands every Jew in Congress an Israeli citizen.

Some people lap up their conspiracies as truth.

Thoreau72 · May 14, 2020

Rich2018 said:
Let's say I am somewhat skeptical of that web page

There is no mention of Israeli citizen ship on his web page or any other biographical web page
When did he apply for Israeli citizenship for instance ?

I think you've been hoodwinked by a RW conspiracy web page

As the clown in the White House would say, that's fake news.

I think you have typically accepted without question the notion advanced by AIPAC, that Israel is our friend and ally. Not to worry, we have the government we deserve.

Rich2018 · May 14, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
I think you have typically accepted without question the notion advanced by AIPAC, that Israel is our friend and ally. Not to worry, we have the government we deserve.

I am no admirer of Israel, it is a state that should not exist.

But like so many foreign policy issues, the USA would listen to advice and pushed for its creation, causing decades of turbulence ever since

Now back to your claim and your "niche" web site

Do you still take what it says over the rest of the internet and hold on to the belief that Chuck Schumer is an Israeli citizen ?

Thoreau72 · May 15, 2020

Rich2018 said:
I am no admirer of Israel, it is a state that should not exist.

But like so many foreign policy issues, the USA would listen to advice and pushed for its creation, causing decades of turbulence ever since

Now back to your claim and your "niche" web site

Do you still take what it says over the rest of the internet and hold on to the belief that Chuck Schumer is an Israeli citizen ?

I am very much in favor of the state of Israel. I'm also in favor of the state of Palestine. Keep the religious freaks and zealots close to each other so they can battle it out as they have for centuries. Just keep the US out of it.

I am very much against the State of Israel controlling the US government as it does. I am very much against allowing dual citizens to serve in government. We should follow the Australian model.

AIPAC should be forced to register under FARA, as an agent of a foreign government. It will never happen because Israel controls the federal government.

Rich2018 · May 15, 2020

Thoreau72 said:
I am very much in favor of the state of Israel. I'm also in favor of the state of Palestine.

I have news for you, you can't really be in favor of both

(unless you're content to restrict Palestine to Gaza and the West Bank (which Israel violates constantly)

The only real issue in the Middle East is land

Keep the religious freaks and zealots close to each other so they can battle it out as they have for centuries. Just keep the US out of it.

Keeping the US out of it should have happened in 1947
There should be NO Israeli state

quote]I am very much against the State of Israel controlling the US government as it does. I am very much against allowing dual citizens to serve in government. We should follow the Australian model.[/quote]

Do you still swallow that crap from your web site that Chuck Schumer is an Israel citizen ?

AIPAC should be forced to register under FARA, as an agent of a foreign government. It will never happen because Israel controls the federal government.[/QUOTE]