Lion of the Blogosphere

Outrageously bad Supreme Court decision

I only read the NY Times article and not the text of the decision or the dissent, but I think it’s pretty clear what happened. After the trial was over, two jurors went to the judge and told on another juror who they said made racist remarks about the defendant.

Thus, the Supreme Court holds that a mistrial can be declared based on the jurors’ testimony, overturning hundreds of years of tradition that what happens in the jury room is totally secret.

Justice Kennedy joined with the liberals on this one. Obviously what they believe is that racism is so evil that it can’t be ignored. So now, jurors can say any mean or moronic thing about the defendant that they want and the conviction can’t be overturned, as long as it’s not racist, because racism is going too far, it’s just too evil to be ignored.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

March 6, 2017 at 8:21 pm

Posted in Law

23 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Lion what would happen if the congress passed a law stating the different kinds of majorities necessary for different court rulings and said that judicial review required some kind of super majority or consensus? Unlike with congress the constitution doesn’t lay out the thresholds required for court rulings.


    March 6, 2017 at 8:27 pm

    • Well obviously that would never happen but if Congress did pass such a ruling I would expect that the SC would rule in unconstitutional.

      Constitutional crisis is inevitable, although I don’t suspect one will happen until Trump’s 2nd term at the earliest.

      Otis the Sweaty

      March 6, 2017 at 9:51 pm

      • If Trump wants to lay the foundation for a crisis wouldn’t it be smart to do it the way I described so that Trump looks like he’s teaming up with the most democratic branch to fight against the the least democratic branch arbitrarily giving itself power.


        March 6, 2017 at 11:30 pm

  2. Lion, you’re exactly right! This decision is an unmitigated outrage. Compare with the Court’s decision in Tanner v. US where even a jury that is hammered drunk and high on marijuana and cocaine throughout the entire trial can still render a valid verdict! But a racially tinged remark was a bridge too far?! Simply an appalling decision, but why should we expect different from Kennedy the Cuck!

    Two in the Bush

    March 6, 2017 at 9:36 pm

  3. The key to battling racism is to expand the definition of racism so that things SWPLs do is also racist. For example, I have thought of the term georacism. That’s when you live in a majority white area (for the “good schools”) when you could just was well live in a non-majority white area. Since you have made that choice, you are georacist because you hate diversity. This term has the added benefit of being inherently always true.


    March 6, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    • Clever.


      March 6, 2017 at 9:49 pm

    • I like it. That has the potential for being a game changer.


      March 6, 2017 at 9:51 pm

    • I think that’s more likely to cause people to send their kids to shitty schools or not have kids at all than abandon their antiracism.


      March 6, 2017 at 10:15 pm

      • Heh, really. I why have a kid if it might, years down the road, cause someone to accuse you of racism? Better give up on the idea of children than that!

        Mike Street Station

        March 7, 2017 at 6:14 am

      • It’s a one generation gambit. It basically banks on SWPLs’ desires to live good lives to overpower their status striving/not wanting to be seen as morally evil.

        Highly risky given how prone to nihilism they are.

        Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

        March 7, 2017 at 12:37 pm

    • Groracism what a load of bunk. Are you making that up?

      The smartest thing any of us could do now is send our kids to a majority Asian school.


      March 7, 2017 at 12:36 pm

  4. In my state parties seek mistrials for alleged juror misconduct all the time. Often premised on alleged false claims or incomplete information provided on juror questionnaires.


    March 6, 2017 at 10:02 pm

  5. The media keeps calling the courts unbiased because the courts are just another branch of the necon establishment.

    The sooner people talk about judges being corrupt, greedy, retarded and in some cases paedophiles, the sooner the courts get cleaned out.

    If you don’t say it, you’ll never fix it. This decorum bullshit is a waste of fuckin time. They’re all corrupt nepotist hires and obese low impulse control half rate eunuchs. Bash them .

    The Philosopher

    March 7, 2017 at 9:34 am

    • Love your description. Yes, the time for decorum is over.

      Paul Ryan's Sickly Old Lapdog

      March 7, 2017 at 12:39 pm

  6. Wow, that’s a stupid decision. And it was about a beaner, too! I was pretty sure it was going to be someone saying the dreaded N word, but no. It was just a kind of casual — and largely true, but what does truth matter anymore? — comment. So what’s next? Will there be a mistrial because someone on the jury is “prejudiced” against murderers?

    You think maybe on the O.J. jury they said a few impolite things about white people when they were behind closed doors? Nahhh! And anyway, this rule will never, ever be applied to anti-white comments.

    Naturally, the usual Four Nitwits just rule straight politics (utterly lawless Supreme Court justices, there’s irony for ya), and Kennedy, relishing his role as the decider, goes with the flow (and by “flow” I mean the decision that will get him praise in the media). We really need Trump’s guy on there, and then for one of the Four Nitwits to retire or, preferably, drop dead.


    March 7, 2017 at 10:16 am

    • Ruth Bader Ginsburgh is 83, Kennedy is 80.

      • According to the Social Security Administration, Ginsberg will live another 7.8 years and Kennedy another 8.4 years. Since Trump will not seek a second term, he will not get a second USSCJ pick.

        E. Rekshun

        March 7, 2017 at 11:01 am

      • Just because they will live that long doesn’t mean they will be up to going to work every day for that long.

        And I don’t see why you think Trump won’t seek a second term. That’s just repeating Trump-hating nonsense, like they said he wouldn’t even take office because he didn’t want the job.

      • No way Ginsburg retires under Trump, no matter if she needs to be wheeled in on a hospital bed. Kennedy wants to be replaced by a Republican, but he doesn’t want his “legacy” to be “tarnished” by looking like too close a Trump ally, so he’ll wait until he has his first significant elderly man health scare and then retire.


        March 7, 2017 at 11:22 am

      • “Ruth Bader Ginsburgh is 83, Kennedy is 80.”

        And George Soros is 86. Why do these miserable people live forever? Maybe they really do sell their souls to the devil in exchange for long life.


        March 7, 2017 at 12:15 pm

      • If a justice is too infirm to perform the duties, can he be removed? So if Ginsburg won’t step down despite being hospitalized with her final illness, can she be removed? Or would they just go on hearing cases with only seven or eight like they are now?

        no too late

        March 7, 2017 at 12:25 pm

      • Regarding Ginsberg, keep in mind that she has access to the very best medical care, she is not obese, she is intelligent and educated, and she is surely determined to outlive Trump’s tenure. So if it weren’t for her cancer problem, I would guess that her life expectancy is a good deal more than 8 years.

        But the cancer is a bit of a wildcard. I am not an expert but I would guess that a past diagnosis of pancreatic cancer is a huge hit to one’s life expectancy.


        March 7, 2017 at 12:38 pm

      • Lion I don’t think Trump believed he would win. Did you see the look on his face the day after? The election was another publicity tool for him.

        I just hopes he upholds his promises to us.


        March 7, 2017 at 12:39 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: