tvc184

I must have missed the part where the ADA said he struck the juror for being part of a hate group. 

  And if you can show me any legal precedent that says only people belonging to hate groups can be struck from juries and I will say that you are on to something.   I have sat on juries and testified in many trials. I have seen people struck and seen the defense attorney contest strikes based on race (Batson strike). In one jury pool the DA had three strikes that were contested. The DA countered that one had a spouse had been convicted of the same crime (I think it was DWI) so the potential juror might be prejudiced against the police (making for an unfair jury), one had been involved in a lawsuit based on the same crime from injuries and I don't remember the other reasoning but the judge ruled that all strikes were fair based on cause and not on race.    A jury is supposed to be fair for both sides and the people serving need to go in with as much of an open mind as possible. In this case a woman is posting material on how to survive while driving black (The Negro Motorist Green Book). To me that appears that she believes that she might be targeted based on race and is even posting survival tips on how to stay away from cops. It doesn't even matter if she is correct, it a preconceived perception (prejudice) that is the problem. Nothing in that article that hippy posted or the others that I have read said that she was struck due to being an NAACP member. He also never claimed she was some kind of supremacist.    I read several articles on this issue and found this as his statement... "It's not because of race. It's because in part she appeared to be an activist, and that's what we don't want. Just as if she was white, we wouldn't want a white activist or a white supremacist." The DA said that she appears to be an "activist", not a "supremacist" or "racist". Looking at her postings, she might very well be an activist for a cause.    I see nothing wrong with his statement.    So I will ask this, what if  the defendant was black as in this case and there was a prospective white juror that was not the member of any hate group. But maybe he had postings he had made on how to survive while being white in a minority neighborhood and had posted The Turner Diaries, just as this woman posted the book about black survival while traveling (published until the early 1960's)? The Turner Diaries was a novel written by a white separatist. Would you want this person sitting in judgment of a family member? Remember that he belongs to no group and just posts thoughts.    Remember that the DA is an elected official and wanted to quickly stop something that might cost votes. That makes his firing political. That might even be within the law as an at will employee but let's call it what it is. I suspect that if a black assistant DA that made the same or similar statements and was fired, we would be seeing an opposite response. 

  You are going pretty far out to try and rationalize you statement.   You cannot strike for any reason as you started out with because you then follow up on race. Race here is not the issue but mindset. How do you strike a member of the KKK without bringing up race? It isn't because he is white but because he is prejudiced and not likely to act fairly by the evidence presented.    An activist for a cause, valid or not, is still an activist.    As far as your claim of fighting an allegation between advocacy and hatred (both to me should be disqualifiers) is meaningless because that is for the opposing attorney to raise and a judge to rule. That happens every day in this country in courtrooms. This isn't an election or popularity contest. It is a plea based on legal grounds and happens any number of times in a trial or the motions leading up to it.    This ADA's termination seems political for various reasons. 

  They do not have to be the same. Any person can be rejected for cause and that cause can be any prejudice toward either side of the case in question. Whether one group is the exact same an another does not matter. If a person is an activist for a cause, that person really should not be on a jury deciding an issue.    The criminal's defense attorney even stated that it was an overreaction. There is no problem contesting a strike based on race and I have sat on juries (I think that I have sat on four juries in both state and federal court) with such challenges. It is not every case but far from rare that a defense attorney will challenge a strike. 

The prosecutor makes a valid argument however he should know that he can never mention race per se in court unless it deals with a description of a suspect. 

  They are crowing like they beat someone. One conservative replaced a less conservative one in a seat that will likely stay Republican. That new Republican might be a bigger thorn in the side of the Dems than the guy that is being replaced and they act and think it is a great deal.    To me, that is stupid. 

Maybe the Tea Party isn't dead after all. One Republican beat another one. Apparently the Dems are too stupid to realize that it was not their guy that won and an even more conservative will take his place.

It is almost too funny that the teacher's union calls the decision that allows the firing of incompetent teachers "deeply flawed". What seems to me that is deeply flawed is the teacher's union.

Yes. He has taught me that you can only scam the public for so long until even your thinking (not blindly following) supporters bail out on you and vote for the opposition. Which is exactly why that the last 6 of his 8 years in office will show him with no political clout whatsoever. He was a lame duck after his second year in office. If the next Democratic nominee for president is lucky enough to win, he/she will begin the term without having any support in Congress and will remain a lame duck through the entire term unless vast changes are made in the way that he/she does business. I wonder if the Dems will realize the same lesson. I doubt it.

  With the power to pass no legislation. 

  ..... and the Dems are sweating that the sinking ship might be about to take over complete control of Congress. 

Only if he had Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea. 

  That simply is not true unless you intentionally skipped two step raises in between $5.15 and $7.25.    If you want to do it that way, the MW was $1.60 when I started working so it went from $1.60 to $7.25. 

  There have been court cases that say that WBC (other protest and religion cases but specifically one involving them) is within their rights to protest. There has been no federal cases that show any right to openly display rifles in a public place.    I understand the rationale of being within your rights but not doing something anyway because it is stupid but the argument doesn't fit here as there is no "right" yet shown to openly display firearms. 

Yes we had an income tax prior to 1913 including at the least, during the Civil War. In 1895 the SCOTUS ruled in a case (Pollock) that income taxes were "direct taxes" which were allowed under Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.    The problem with these direct taxes (income tax is included in that definition) is the aforementioned apportionment.    Income taxes have always been legal to impose but not legal the way they were imposed and they were collected way before 1913 or even 1895. The Sixteenth Amendment ended those technicalities. 

  That is not exactly true and they did not teach that in my school and I doubt any others. The founding fathers put taxes in the US Constitution in Article I and in fact in Section 2 they allowed income taxes where it says that there are "direct taxes" allowed.   The SCOTUS threw out income taxes in 1895 because Section 2 said that all direct taxes collected had to be "apportioned" throughout the states. Apportioned meant that the taxes collected had to be spent back at the same rate they were taken in by the states so if Texas sent in 25% of all income taxes, then 25% had to be spent back in Texas and not sent to where Congress wanted. It had to be "apportioned".    Article I Section 8 clearly says that Congress has the right to levy taxes but does not mention apportionment like Article I Section 2 which only deals with "direct taxes".   So taxes were allowed and direct (income) taxes were allowed but with limitations. They were never listed as illegal and in fact the US government cannot run without taxes and everyone including the founding fathers knew that. The problem with taxes is not that they exist but that their spending is abused.   Since Article I is the very first section of the US Constitution and in two sections it clearly talks about taxes I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that the founding fathers thought that they were evil and somehow should not exist when the colonies all signed off on it.    The apportionment problem was taken away with the 16th Amendment where it takes the requirement of apportionment away. 

    Whatever the percentage, it pales in comparison to the people that oppose him for his horrible performance.    Apparently the majority of his votes that were from whites in his first election and his poll numbers were very high weren't racist but they changed sometime during the next six years. I suppose they weren't racist when they voted for him the first go round but now it must be his skin color and not the terrible decisions, nominations, cover ups, criminal actions, etc., that are causing those feelings.

  Check you PM's for a tip on stepping it up. 

  Yes, it is written from their slant.    I have seen plenty of nationally known Democrats say that there is no way that the Democrats get back the House (meaning that Obama is so popular that for the last 6 of 8 years as the president, he had control of those houses for two years) and are in definite danger of losing the Senate. It might not be a Tsunami but you can bet that the national Dems are sweating. 

Why do I have the feeling that this may be short lived?

  Ask for the GG meal card the next time you go there. You can also go online and register it and they will send you specials. If you do register, you can also look at a record of every time you ate there (date, time, receipt) and how many meals until your next free one. If you go with a friend and he/she doesn't have a card, you can put both meals (or however many) on it. I took my mother and wife and got three meals logged in one setting. 

Rockin' right along like a well oiled machine................ 

  I have 1,000.... do I have 5,000?    5,000... 5,000....  need another bidder..............

Twenty-three pages on a thread about an old white guy born in the early 1930's that made a private comment to his black girlfriend that he didn't like her hanging around publicly with black guys because he is seen with her in public also? 

  I have the GG card where you can get a free meal after 10 meals bought. So far I have gotten 4 free meals and working on my 5th.