The speech is from The Blues Brothers.
Final scene is the title characters in prison.
Playing “Jailhouse Rock” while Joe Walsh dances on the table…
On some level I understand. The phenomenon around tRump is both those things. If he described the defendant as “seductive and piquant” I’d be more worried.
But if that guy ends up being the jury nullification dude, I’ll be peeved.
Hmmm.. My recollection (without googling) is it’s from when Jake meets his fiance in the sewers, and is trying to make excuses for why he left her at the alter.
this cracked me up as i am eating carrot sticks right now.
Moderating;
Let’s drop this hijack now. It’s gone on long enough. Thanks.
- People aren’t “smart” and “dumb”. Michael Jackson was a genius at music and dance. When he died, he was deep in debt and his house was owned by Tom Barrack because Jackson couldn’t keep payments on it. Isaac Newton developed calculus and figured out the math of gravity. He also wrote history books where he took things like the historical existence of centaurs, literally, and likely died a virgin. Trump is a genius at getting attention, and a genius at reading the room and modifying what he says to what they want to hear. He’s an idiot at most other things.
- That said, go to any high school and you’ll find complete morons getting voted in as school president. Over time, we’ve reduced the freedom of the electoral college, removed and reduced the power of party officials to influence the primaries, broken machine politics, increased the push to get every person of every age and mental capacity out for the vote, and otherwise moved everything towards the simple popular vote. Our historical systems had various layers (some of which you could fairly say had undesirable elements) that ensured that Congress and the President were selected by people who are more discerning and serious than the average voter. At the moment, the Democratic party still has Superdelegates; the Supreme Court and the Presidential Cabinet that still has some safeguards; otherwise, it’s all just strapping ourselves on the bull and riding out into the desert, waving our collective hat in the air. Yeehaw!
I agree with most of your post, just this bit seems like an odd remark.
Nitpick “El diablo naranja”, the orange color is always “Naranja” it doesn’t change with the sustantive’s gender.
That said this is the juror I would be more concerned about.
I’d say the issue tells us more about the intelligence of the voters than it does about his own lack of intelligence.
Guys with brains don’t declare that they wrote off hush payments as legal fees during their own trial for doing just that.
Emphasis mine.
Just unbelievable. Literally. It’s almost impossible to believe that someone could be so completely detached from major news events. This is the kind of disinterest that flat-earthers come from. And fact-denying Trumpists.
The presumption that someone who wasn’t even aware that Trump is facing dozens of criminal charges elsewhere would naturally not have any prejudices has to be more than outweighed by the presumption that such a person apparently spent their whole life deprived of information about world events. Is such a person going to be capable of exercising rational judgment and a sense of perspective?
I worked with a guy who was unaware of the January 6 Hearings. It is possible to be so detached. He thought the insurrection was just a “little riot.”
It just seems very odd to me. I assume the prosecution knows what they’re doing. OTOH, I thought the same thing in the OJ Simpson case.
I’d read that before. Struck me as relevant to his social skills - or lack thereof.
Many people don’t do social media, don’t watch news on tv, don’t get newspapers or magazines. The only news they get is what diffuses to them from the people they know, who might also not engage directly with news sources. One can live a fulfilling life without news, and they do so.
We had a similar episode in Saskatchewan. After David Milgaard was exonerated due to DNA evidence pointing to another guy, and a Supreme Court of Canada case holding that Milgaard had been wrongfully convicted, and a 20 year campaign by Milgaard’s mother, and a public encounter between Milgaard’s mother and the Prime Minister where she asked him to have the case reviewed, the other guy was put on trial.
One of the jurors in the second case stated that she had never heard of the Milgaard case.
Some people just don’t care about politics, and are lucky to live in a country that affords them the privilege of not doing so. This woman is employed and has a Masters’ degree, so I don’t think there’s any realistic doubt about her capacity to exercise rational judgment.
Plus, as a prosecutor, I’m fine with jurors who come in as a blank slate. They can be educated about the crime through the presentation of evidence. It’s people coming in who think they already know what happened that id be worried about.
And if she is a weak mind, then she’s just going to go along with the jury’s consensus. So there wouldn’t be a concern about convincing her.
Not necessarily, though hard to believe. I know a couple who, out of a combination of self-protectiveness from the stresses of the world and a pseudo-elitism associated with not watching television, several years ago wondered what the hell I was talking about when I was talking about the negatives of the GOP. And these are both well educated people but they are just ignorant of world affairs.
Also, I think that we dopers are far more aware of current affairs than many. Sure, I watch the news a lot but the amount I’ve learned here is unquestionable.