What is Digg?12 Comments
- Minarchian, on 07/17/2008, -2/+6Many people don't know that when you are in a Court room you have virtually no Rights at all. The Judge can also be the jury to send your ass to jail almost on a whim. It's something the judges, themselves, have made up. That they can send you off to jail for up to 6 months for almost anything. It's something you will not find in the Constitution.
Also try sitting down when a judge enters the room. He'll throw you in jail.
I don't know about how others feel about this, but the way I see it is the same thing as forcing people to kneel to his presence. - Kent4jmj, on 07/17/2008, -1/+4Yes, 'our only laws' are in the Constitution. It is the Highest Law of the Land. Any other laws found not to be in conformity with the Highest Law of the Land are un-constitutional and therefor invalid.
That is the beauty of a Republic. The Law, our contract, protects us from tyranny and injustice. In showing respect to the Judge who represents the law, we are giving respect to the Constitution, not the man.
As for the disrespect shown by this woman her ignorance came with a price.
This is why an informed citizenry is so crucial. Our court system is our best defense against tyranny and injustice. If a citizen knows that a law is unconstitutional and a defendant is being charged with breaking that "law" then the juror can vote not guilty free from all impunity.
Can you imagine the return to Constitutional law if all restrictive laws concerning the 2nd amendment or any other one for that matter were ignored by jurors.
Failing to pay income tax and owning/carrying a gun are two big ones that come to mind. - Kent4jmj, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2cutright
Whether or not her actions were unconstitutional is not in my realm to comment on at this time. I tend to think that she was rough, not very socially adept and probably let her anger get the best of her. But her underlying reason for not wanting to do jury duty may have been valid. I don't know.
What I do know is she had to take time out of her life which is her personal property which was not compensated for. The State is her servant not the other way around.
My post was in response to the following,
"You aren't suggesting that our only laws in this country are found in the Constitution are you?"
Yes that is exactly what I am suggesting. It is absolutely crystal clear All our laws must be found to be in union with the our Constitution. It and it alone is the Supreme Law of the Land. If a law is not Constitutional it is not valid and can be ignored by any juror who choses to.
This is why historical revisionism is such a hot topic when interpreting the meaning of the constitution in its historical context and what the Founding Fathers meant or intended by what they wrote. The 2nd amendment debate is a perfect example. - PeppermintPig, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Kneel before Zod.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2Jurors are paid poorly, and taken out of their normal routine they can be rather agitated. Some, I dare say, enjoy jury duty and enjoy convicting people for vice 'crimes'.
- PeppermintPig, on 07/18/2008, -0/+2That's a good point.
Some judges just view it as the physical confines of a court room, but no other rooms in the court house.
"He may have the legal right to do what he did, but I certainly think it proves that she's right."
I think it proves she is right. I don't think he has a legal right to do that. Among other things they'd have to prove she chose to suspend her rights. She doesn't sound smart enough to fight the issue though. - V3n0M, on 07/17/2008, -2/+3I'm no lawyer, but what strikes me is the definition of "court" in "contempt of court". Is it the judge, the building, or the procedure/process?
It seems to me she may have been in a courthouse, but "court" was not in session, so how could she be held in contempt of it? If a judge cuts you off on the road, and you call him/her and a-hole, can you get thrown in jail for it? Or only while he's in the building whether court is in session or not?
He may have the legal right to do what he did, but I certainly think it proves that she's right. - cutright, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Minarchian
How would you suggest it go down? It's a problem for a judge to hold someone in contempt but it's not a problem if a cop does it? It's not like the judge sentenced her on the spot. If a cop even has probable cause on someone, he/she can not only hold them at the police department, but can drag them kicking and screaming from across town... even if it was out of their busy day.
everyone else
I really am amazed at how many people find pity on this woman. Being put in contempt of court is like your dad putting you in the corner for a little while, then he comes over and asks what's wrong after you've calmed down... unless of course you did something really bad. In her case, it was just a slap on the wrist. I think she should have gotten a fine of some sort for wasting tax payer's money. - Minarchian, on 07/18/2008, -0/+1My real issue is the fact that they made it up when they declare that they can send your ass to prison for up to six months without trial. All on the word of some judge, whether he's just having a bad day or he has a genuine reason to send you off.
Nowhere is it written that any official of the State can constitutionally do that. It is a creature of the State; outside the bounds and limits placed on them by the Constitution, and really has no place in a free society. - cutright, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1She had to take time out of her life just like every other citizen is expected to do, that's why it's called civic duty.
I don't disagree with you... the laws should be in agreement, but won't necessarily be found in the Constitution. Hence, you won't find contempt of court in the Constitution. - cutright, on 07/17/2008, -2/+2What about the right to peaceably assemble? That's in the same amendment. I fail to see how being held in contempt of court for trying to avoid one's civic duty twice, failing, and then getting verbally angry with the judge is unconstitutional, regardless of the fact she felt someone else got out of duty unjustly. There is a process for expressing that without breaking any of the amendments... she broke the first one by not allowing the right to peaceably assemble.
“I just didn’t want to do jury duty. That’s the best excuse there was,” Muller said later.
Again... why are we being sympathetic to this case? I can understand if you feel like there are contradictions in our laws with our Constitution.. they're all over the place. But this is not one of them. - cutright, on 07/17/2008, -3/+2You aren't suggesting that our only laws in this country are found in the Constitution are you? In order to uphold the Constitution, a controlled environment must be provided to civilly and respectfully determine if any wrong doing has occurred. And no... the Judges of this country didn't just make up this rule.
Secondly, why should anyone have sympathy for someone who is annoyed for having to perform her civic duty and then mouths off a judge, not once, but twice! He gave her a chance to refine what she called him.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is