Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (267541)	1/8/2006 3:16:31 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 1574001

When Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson can ... The problem there is with the jury, which IMO is also a very important part of our system. Don't know how to reform that part. ... too many frivolous lawsuits in the courts. There are laws against frivolous lawsuits, don't know what is federal vs. state actually. There is the issue of what is important to you might be frivolous to me, or the other way around. I note that the recent Dover, PA Intelligent Design/Evolution trial was not a jury trial, but rather decided solely by a (fortunately intelligent) judge. If Supreme Court cases required juries, we might have many interesting results don't you think?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (267541)	1/8/2006 5:33:42 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574001

Yes, to a certain extent. I think the Judicial branch is one clearly the most successful of our branches of government. However, even it is broken. When Michael Jackson and OJ Simpson can molest little kids and commit murder and still be free men, that tells me we need to level the playing field so that rich people can't commit crimes with impunity anymore. I don't think that's an example of a system that is broke. On the contrary, I think its an example of the system working. I wanted Jackson and OJ hung just like the next guy but the DA in each case had to prove without a shadow of doubt that the two men were guilty of of what they were accused. That did not happen. After the Jackson case, there were jurors who believed Jackson was guilty but felt that the DA did not show enough convincing evidence to support that position and so they couldn't vote to find him guilty. In fact, I think its with lesser cases where there can be hanky panky or simply a poor job done. Just recently, they came up with another case where through DNA, they found that a guy executed in 1994 did not commit the crime. Its in those cases where I think the system has broken down or been tampered with. Then when the ACLU can tie up millions of dollars and countless hours of the Supreme Court's time and money on all sorts of ridiculous things like taking "One nation under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance, or eliminating the Ten Commandments from a public place, then I say we have a Judicial system that allows too many frivolous lawsuits in the courts. That clause was inserted in the Pledge in 1952. Many people question why you must show allegiance to both your country AND a god. Religion is an important issue to many people so of course inserting "under God" is going to be controversial. Why do you think its frivolous? Certainly, the people who inserted the clause didn't think it was frivolous.