Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking. Login or Take a Tour!
This is so typical of the Roberts Court. They are committed to tortured logic to prove an otherwise indefensible point. It is as if they exist in an academy and not in the world. "There is no reason to assume that the jurors didn't go back and redeliberate the charge they previously unanimously agreed upon?" WTF!? There may be some purely logical truth to this statement, but it completely flies in the face of everyday experience and inductive reasoning. It reminds me of Scalia's assertion a few years ago the procedural guilt or innocence should always supersede actual guilt or innocence, because an exact reading of the law doesn't make any special considerations for whether you did it, just whether you were convicted fairly in open court. They are criminals, the robber barons of freedom on almost every important issue.