If Limbaugh is not arrested and charged I will never find someone guilty..

[NNN0LHI]

...of a drug charge while serving on jury duty again. Unless of course the defendant appears to be a freeper in which case I would throw the book at them.

[wysimdnwyg]

1. While I would like to take that stance

I feel obliged to do my duty as a sworn juror to uphold the law. It is not a juror's place to decide if the law is just or not, only to rule based on the facts given in the case.

That said, if the sentence is up to the jury, I will endeavor to be lenient.

[mopinko]

3. wrong wrong the purpose of the jury system

is to make sure that the citizen is the ultimate arbiter of the law. refusing to enforce unjust laws is your duty as a citizen. it's called jury nulification.

[wysimdnwyg]

4. Having never been on a jury

(I got picked once, but I got out of it for school), I will gladly defer as to the official purpose of a jury. However, I would like to see where it says a jury is allowed to refuse enforcement of "unjust" laws.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Jury Nullification

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

<snip>Early in our history, judges often informed jurors of their nullification right. For example, our first Chief Justice, John Jay, told jurors: "You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge ." In 1805, one of the charges against Justice Samuel Chase in his impeachment trial was that he wrongly prevented an attorney from arguing to a jury that the law should not be followed.

Judicial acceptance of nullification began to wane, however, in the late 1800s. In 1895, in United States v Sparf, the U. S. Supreme Court voted 7 to 2 to uphold the conviction in a case in which the trial judge refused the defense attorney's request to let the jury know of their nullification power.

Courts recently have been reluctant to encourage jury nullification, and in fact have taken several steps to prevent it. In most jurisdictions, judges instruct jurors that it is their duty to apply the law as it is given to them, whether they agree with the law or not. Only in a handful of states are jurors told that they have the power to judge both the facts and the law of the case. Most judges also will prohibit attorneys from using their closing arguments to directly appeal to jurors to nullify the law.

Recently, several courts have indicated that judges also have the right, when it is brought to their attention by other jurors, to remove (prior to a verdict, of course) from juries any juror who makes clear his or her intention to vote to nullify the law.

more

[wysimdnwyg]

8. Thank you

I will certainly take that into consideration. However, I stand by my original vote. I cannot in good conscience say that I would never vote to convict someone for a drug crime.

[TolstoyAndy]

16. Drugs are not crimes n/t

[Grins]

37. No, it's not.

The purpose of the jury is to determine guilt or innocence. "Jury nullification" is nothing more than “vigilante justice”. It's a slippery slope. Think the jury in the Scottsboro case was merely refusing to enforce an unjust law?

[BiggJawn]

29. Oooooooooohhh!!!! WRONG! WRONG!

It is the duty of a Juror to judge the LAW as well as the case before him.
go HERE:
http://www.deoxy.org/juryrite.htm

Yeah, it may smack a little of "militia-ism" but I believe it is true. The Jury holds more power than the judge, only the judge "forgets" to tell you that fact in his instructions to you.

[Jack The Tab]

2. Certainly for any drug posession or distribution case...

This whole situation sickens me. The man was in posession of large quantities of illegal narcotics. Enough to send anyone away on a traficking charge. And he walks...It is shameful.

[bearfartinthewoods]

10. how do you know that?

where is the proof that he has ever been in possession of large amounts of drugs? sweet tea, people!!!!! let's not get carried away?

if i were to get arrested for drugs it better be on more evidence that someone said i had them!!! you guys are scary!!!!

[Solomon]

22. What the fuck?!! Do you know, can you count, how many black

guys are locked up because someone fucking said they had drugs? Sheeesh. Let's get real here. It's a goddamn travesty that Rush is back on the air. He fucking admitted it for chrissakes! And people wonder why the black underclass is so damn angry. Jeeeeezuuzz.

[madddog]

33. the "black underclass"???? wtf....

[bearfartinthewoods]

42. i just put in a call to our local DA

he's not available but i will probably hear back from him, since we graduated in the same class.

weeks ago, i ran into him and we discussed this. he said that based on the evidence publicly available, as outlined in my first post, he has never nor would he ever bring charges. if things are different where you live....if people are being arrested without evidence, i suggest you have work to do.

[Solomon]

46. What a joke. What a fucking joke. A prosecutor saying he

wouldn't bring a case against a rich white man. HaHAha Bwaaaa!
Maybe he should get a hold of the wire taps and the police survelliance they've had on the guy for a year. Oh, maybe we can't really identify the fat fuck or agree that it's his voice on the wire.

[bearfartinthewoods]

52. how many times do i have to say this? link?

if there are court approved wire taps it's a different story. i don't see any quotes that say there are. all i see a outrage which i share but not enough to toss out my constitutional protections in order to bust him unless ther is actual proof that withstands the scrutiny of the court.

can't you see this is exactly the same kind of thinking that ascroft is using in the padillia case? he posits that normal procedures don't have to be followed because padillia is such a bad man and presents such a big threat.

what i'm hearing here is that normal procedures don't have to be followed because rush is such a bad man and presents such a big threat.

it's the same freakin mindset!!!

[Solomon]

56. My question to you is WHY WEREN'T THERE COURT APPROVED

WIRETAPS. Especially in this day and age. They had more than enough to go to a judge and get one. And they do have a live witness don't they? They don't need the damn taps.

[bearfartinthewoods]

62. good questions

when i story broke i figured we were screwed because the maid blew the lid of any investigation that might have been ongoing. i can actually see some reluctance for some police outfit to step into this shit. i am NOT saying it's right. i am saying it wouldn't surprise me for them to want to dot all the eyes and cross the tees when going up against someone like rush.

i don't remember any timeline given as to how long it was between the time the maid went to the cops and the story broke in the tabloids.

bottom line...her greed to make the money screwed us for sure though.

[Solomon]

66. True. Her taking money allows her credibility to be questioned but

it doesn't stop her from being a witness nevertheless. Tons of people are prosecuted on the word of other criminals and even other defendants who are looking for a deal in exchange for their testimony.

[Jack The Tab]

30. He was caught with approx 4,000 of those pills!

Sweet tea, bear, it was reported. He's a goddamn traficker, according to the law of the land.

[bearfartinthewoods]

39. link? when was he "caught" and by whom?

i heard reports that the maid alledged he bought that many but never heard anything about a warrant or search or any indication that he was actually caught with drugs in his possession. i know i haven't been paying attention but i think i would have remembered that.
link please?

[Jack The Tab]

36. Here's an exact number, from just ONE 47 day period...

>>SNIP

She said she wore a wire during her last two deliveries and gave the tapes to authorities.


She also gave the Enquirer a ledger documenting how many pills she claimed to have bought for him -- 4,350 in one 47-day period -- and e-mails she claimed Limbaugh sent her.


In one e-mail, Limbaugh urged Cline to get more "little blues," the street name for the powerful narcotic OxyContin, she said.

>>END SNIP

This was widely reported at the time. Do a google search on it.

[bearfartinthewoods]

44. again...if the police had a warrent for the wire it's a different story

if so, the tapes and any evidence secured via them would be legal.

your quote doesn't say that nor did any of the articles i've read on it. giving tapes to the cops is not the same as wearing a wire, warrented by proper legal authorization.

a ledger can be challenged. i can write a ledger saying anything i want and a defense attorney can challange it.

please remember...i think he's guilty as sin. i just don't want the protections of the constitution tossed out in the attempt to prove it.

who was it that said it's better that a hundred guilty men go free that one innocent be unjustly imprisioned?.

[Bake]

73. No warrant needed for wearing a wire

Warrant needed, of course, for telephone wiretap of a land line.

And beware: no warrant needed for intercepting a cellphone transmission!!!

Bake

[Zorra]

50. Yes. The police, apparently, deliberately did not petition a judge for a

warrant to search Limbaugh's residence, so that there would be no chance for serious prosecution. Seems like the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Dept. was totally "negligent".

If they knew he was in possession of illegally obtained narcotics, how come they made no apparent effort to catch him with them in his possession? Catching Limbaugh with illegally obtained oxycontin would given the prosecutor a slam dunk conviction.

If Limbaugh was not some rich right wing media talk show host, his house would have been searched, the drugs would have been found, and Limbaugh would have been arrested and hauled off to jail.

This Palm Beach County Sheriff's Dept. should be investigated for their apparent "negligence".

[bearfartinthewoods]

55. i am in complete agreement with everything you said

looks like the Palm Beach voters have some work to do to clean house.

[TolstoyAndy]

17. Buth the narcotics are only illegal bc the Power says so n/t

I'm not saying give 'em to kids, but in a really free society, adults would have the right to choose to use or not.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

5. www.fija.org/

www.fija.org/

[1songbird]

7. The fact that Rush is not in jail

just makes me more convinced that the judicial system is jacked up and unbelievably discrimanatory. When I think of all the people whose lives have been wrecked because they had one single joint it makes me want to scream. I would not send a user to jail.

[bearfartinthewoods]

9. WHOA PEOPLE!!!! THIS IS BIGGER THAN limbaugh USED TO BE!

we don't know the details but on the face of it, what do we have as evidence that will stand in a court of law?

a tape which is not admissible under florida law so tahat's off the tablt completly, leaving:

the word of a person who has sold the story for monetary gain.
emails sent from a machine that the maid could have had access to.

try and put rush out of the equation and put kid in this situation.

someone's story, without any other evidence, is sufficient for arrest?

shit....that's like ashcroft's best wet dream!!!!!!

[NNN0LHI]

11. Thats what trials are for

That you don't even say nothing about Jose Padilla sitting in some Navy brig somewhere for over a year on Bush's say so without even having access to an attorney is really Ashcrofts wet dream. Wake up from yours, so you don't miss Rush today.

Don

[TSElliott]

14. Currently it would be a trial with no credible evidence...

And a total waste of taxpayer time and money. What they need to do is find some evidence then draw up the charges and go to trial. As it stands no one would be able to prosecute this and win.

[bearfartinthewoods]

15. give me a frekin break!

that you want to extend the treatment given to Padilla to the rest of us and i object, says more about you than me.

i spent a YEAR of my life trying to dump rush from the local station. i drove 30 miles out of my way to patronize stores that sponsored him and smoozed the owners for MONTHS to develop a relationship in order to talk them out of their sponsor ship.

i pretended to take up fishing again so i had an exceuse to run into and befriend the owner of the station. i ate more crappy meals in run down dives and spent money i didn't have buying crap i didn't need in every dump that sponsered him. just to try and get him off my radio. don't even try and make me out to be a rush fan!

laws ought to apply equally!!!!! and abandoning the rules of evidence in order to get rush off the streets is NOT WORTH IT>

[Touchdown]

35. But Rush can be labelled an enemy combatant

because his drug usage is aiding terrorism, just like the commercials I saw.

[bearfartinthewoods]

54. lol! if only!

like i said earlier, i'm willing to do a helluva lot to dump rush but i have this thing about the constitution and the protections it affords us. it scares the shit out of me to see do many people ready to dump those protections just to put rush in jail.

[DemVet]

12. I agree.

The rule of law must prevail.

[TolstoyAndy]

18. But when the law is unjust

we have a moral obligation to deny its legitimacy.

Segregation, for example.

[Grins]

41. Or...?

...a graven image of the 10-Commandments in a courthouse?

Your argument is false. If a jury can nullify segregation out of moral certainty, then another court can (and many did for over a century) find it morally acceptable. You don’t have moral obligations, you have citizenship; else you might just as well be Judge Roy Moore.

The alternative is to change the law.

[FlaGranny]

19. You've forgotten that the

police WERE investigating Limbaugh and that the maid wore a wire to collect evidence for them. If I remember correctly, the investigation had been ongoing for a year. Also, lots of saved e-mails from Limbaugh.

[bearfartinthewoods]

23. do you have a link for that?

i haven't been following that closely but nothing i read said anything about the maid wearing a wire for the police. if that's true, and they had a warrent, then anything incriminating would be admissable. i'd like to read about that if you have anything since the only stories i read said she did the taping on her own which means they can't be used in court and i think even that cops can't pursue leads they gain from listening to them. i think it's referred to as fruit of the poisoned tree???? i'm not sure but i think it's based on the same concept that doesn't allow evidence based on confessions under duress. since fact A was gained illegally, any thing you learn from investigating fact A is inadmissable. it's for OUR PROTECTION folks, please try and remember that.

as to the e-mails, again, if the maid was in the house
during the period when they were sent that diminishes their value as the defense could put forth that she sent them to herself to validate her claim and add meat to the story she was peddeling to the tabloids.

that doesn't make it inadmissible but it does bring in the validity of the emails.

[FlaGranny]

70. The Palm Beach Post

has all the stories in the archives. I am 100% certain that the investigation was about a year old. I know the maid went to the police and reported the drug purchases she made for him. I'm pretty certain it was the police who "wired" her. But I can't give you a source because the stories are archived. Later, I might have a chance to search for another source, but I'm working right now.

[Bake]

74. Bearfart, are you a Florida lawyer?

If so, please show me the statute that requires a warrant for use of "wiring the housekeeper." I could be wrong, but I don't think a warrant is required for that. Hence, anything on the tapes is admissible (assuming it is relevant and meets the other provisions of the rules of evidence). There is no "fruit of the poisonous tree" problem here, as I see it. If there is a Florida statute that requires a warrant for it, then you're right. But I've never heard of that.

Bake
Admitted to practice in two states, but not in Florida

[Bandit]

13. I guess this just proves OJ really was innocent.

:shrug: "Money can't buy you love" but it will certainly keep your ass out of jail.

[Selwynn]

20. Nice view of justice there...

:eyes:

[VermontDem2004]

21. What do you mean?

All I heard was someone say Rush bought drugs and that is not enough to charge someone with possession or distrubution. As I am aware, they are currently investigating the case. Now why would you throw the book at someone just because he is a freeper?

[Solomon]

24. You guys really take the cake. This is why this country is so fucked up.

They had the goods on Rush for more than a year, but didn't do anything about it. How does that make you feel? And nothing at all would have happened if the Enquirer hadn't outed him. And even now, they still don't prosecute the fuck. You guys really take the cake. Hope you're happy he's back on the air. Denial denial denial.

Why don't we put him on trial and let him prove he didn't do it, okay? Isn't that what trials are for?

[NNN0LHI]

26. If it wasn't for the Enquirer article none of us would have ever even...

...heard about this. The whole thing would have been hushed up as it usually is for the rich and famous.

Don

[bearfartinthewoods]

28. NO THAT IS NOT WHAT TRIALS ARE FOR!!!!!!!!!!

somebody needs to go back to civics class.

we are innocent until proven guilty...

trials are for the state to prove our guilt.

please...try and remember that.

for you to put forth the reverse is part of why this country is so fucked up.

[Solomon]

49. Yeah. You're right. I should have said "prove that the evidence

is insufficient to convict." My bad. As a former criminal defense counsel, I got so used to the reality of defending black people that I forgot. In theory, you don't have to prove you're innocent. I'm ashamed to have said that.

[VermontDem2004]

34. Still don't prosecute him?

All I have read is that some lady said Rush bought large amounts of OxyContin. That is not enough evidence to put him on trial, I can tell the police right now you purchased Crack and they cannot put you on trial unless they have more substantial proof. Hope I am happy he is back on the air? I don't care if he is on the air, he is entitled to his own opinion.

[Solomon]

43. You need to read more. The police knew what he was doing for more

than a year. They have more than enough evidence to prosecute. And compared to the evidence against Kobe Bryant, they have a "mountain of evidence". If they don't charge the bastard, then the system is on shaky ground.

And again, he fucking admitted to a crime. Why shouldn't he be charged and forced to defend himself?

[VermontDem2004]

47. Hold on

I read alot and as far as I know when the story broke free they Florida police were going to investigate it. So what if Rush admitted to the "crime", he actually only admitted to using and that alone is not enough to put him on trial. I go to the police and admit to using Crack, wtf are they going to do?

[Solomon]

57. If you're poor and black they'll get a search warrant and tear your

house up.

[VermontDem2004]

59. The law does not that permit that

They have to get a perment from a judge with reasonable evidence, he/she has to approve their request and work from there. It's not that simple to just "get a search warrant". I am sure if it was that easy you would see houses being raided left and right.

[Solomon]

61. As a criminal defense attorney I can tell you that its very easy to get

a search warrant. Maybe not for you if you're white, but especially with the erosion of rights over the past twenty years, its very easy.
And let me explain something else to you. The law has made an exception to the rule against illegal searches and seizures. If the officers acted in good faith despite doing it wrong, or not having a valid warrant, the court can still let the evidence in. I absolutely hated it when they did this, but they did it, and people are convicted everyday without perfect warrants or perfect procedures. They have watered down our rights and they continue to do so. Seems it only applies to certain people however.

[bearfartinthewoods]

64. Amen! watering down our rights!

i am almost tired of singing this song. our rights have and are being daily whittled away by the WOD. that's the reason i am arguing here. it's gone far enough. the word of a person, unsupported by admissible evidence cannot be enough. the day that happens, all dissent in this country will stop because all they need is someone to say 'Bearfart is a user' and i am carted off.

we have to fight for what rights we have left.

[Solomon]

67. You and I are on the same page Bear. I will admit I have let my anger

get to me on this one. But I too am sick to death of the constant whittling down of our rights. Most people don't get it because they don't understand that crimes are in the last analysis, political.
We assume that we won't need these rights because we aren't criminals, but at any time, the president, legislature, supreme court or whatever can make something that you do a crime. The biggest example of this is if a corporate exec skirts safety laws to save money, he's not prosecuted for murder when workers die in a fire. "Crime" is a political thing.

Rush engendered my anger because he's one of the people who have worked hard over the years to whittle away our rights with his right-wing diatribes. He should be prosecuted like the average person but he's not because he's important to the powers that be. Crime is political. Crack cocaine brings a bigger sentence that powder cocaine.

[bearfartinthewoods]

71. i hear and understand

the period i spoke of, when i was trying to single handedly get rid of him was not a stable period for me. i was probably, clinicly obsessed....to the point where she-bear began to get concerned about my sanity and our budget. if i needed a paint brush i'd drive a half hour, one way to buy it at his sponsor and then hang around shooting the shit for another half hour. i recruited people to go to rush rooms with me just so we could walk out in disgust when the program started, even if i had to drive 100 miles to get to one. i was a sick puppy, actually....waaaaay overboard.

it got to the point that she-bear put down he foot and said i had to get a grip. just another thing for me to be grateful for to her. i almost relapsed last year when there were all the boycot rush sponsors threads.

one thing i learned from that period is that a lot of the people who bought time on his show weren't rushbots. the owner of the station is a liberal..with a dose of libertarian but a liveral none the less.
he wouldn't dump rush because rush was the only thing keeping his station afloat. same goes for a lot of the sponsors. it's all about keeping their heads above water. i think the national sponsers are more vulnerable that the locals, at least here in pubbie hell. there just aren't enough people who object to him, there is no downside to sponsorship. of course wherever the political climate is more temperate or favors us, local sponsors could be vulnerable. the secret is not to go in and just blast the owner 'cause that just let's them write you off as a flake. you have to be a familiar face,
a repeat customer


nevermind....i can't get back into that stuff again. jeeze...is there a 12 step for dealing with rush obsession? i need a meeting.

[bearfartinthewoods]

60. for one thing, he had not been marandized and i think that is required

before the admission can be used in court. i better be careful. i'm not a lawyer and i could be way off but i'm pretty sure that a simple statement like "i am adicted" is not, in itself actionable.

and again i ask, where did you read that the cops know about him for a year?

i read that they were investigating prescription drug sales and that two of the people they were investigating may have been supplying drugs to rush's source but i didn't see anything that definitely said they were investigating him prior to the maid contacting the police.

link?

[Solomon]

63. You're right. Your miranda knowledge is faulty. Miranda doesn't

apply if you simply make a confession or admission while not under arrest or detention and questioning by the cops. That's why you hear people saying from time to time that a suspect should not speak to the media, etc. And also why its stupid when you hear people ask (as was done in O.J.'s case) "why doesn't he call a press conference and answer the charges.?" A defendant can't afford to do that. Any thing you say will be used against you, especially where you are not in custody and/or questioned by the police.

Even when police are involved, if they can show that you volunteered information, miranda doesn't apply either.

By the way, efforts are being made to do away with miranda like every other damned right defendants have.

[Bake]

75. Prior statements ARE admissible

He didn't have to be mirandized; he was never in custody. Prior statements are admissible for all sorts of purposes -- e.g., to impeach any testimony he might give that he "didn't have a drug problem" or "didn't do it" etc.

It's called an "admission against interest" in the evidence rules, and it's even one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule.

Bake, Esq.

[jackcgt]

38. No, it's not.

The burden of proof would be on the prosecution. After all, how could one prove he didn't do something like that? How could you prove you didn't use drugs? Travel back in time and administer a drug test? Don't forget - innocent until proven guilty.

[Solomon]

45. You all are forgetting he admitted it. Oh I get it. Don't charge

rich white men with crimes that are so obvious they smack you in the face. Sure, he's innocent until proven guilty. And he'll continue to be innocent as long as they don't charge him and prove him guilty.

And by the way, where's THE DAMNED MEDIA bullshit you get with any other "suspect". The 24 hour pontificating pundits that try to ruin everybody else's right to a fair trial? Why didn't they send Geraldo out on this one. Hunh? Sorry folks, but the hypocrisy here stinks to high heaven.

[beevul]

25. I could not

EVER vote to convict anyone on a drug charge, reguardless of who they are or what they represent or whos "side" they are on.

Not with a good conscience(sp?) anyhow.

[newyawker99]

40. Hi beevul!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[amazona]

27. i agree but as a self-employed person of very low income...

...I have been excused from serving on juries. I simply can't afford to have my time locked up for a week and have that week turn out to be the one where I get some work. I almost never get called unless it's rush stuff and once you lose a customer because you couldn't get the material to her on deadline, you don't get her back.


they need to have people with training in law, who receive a decent salary, to serve on juries -- current system just not working in my humble opinion

[Grins]

68. Join the club.

Sorry, but you are lucky. We’re probably in the same boat business and income wise, but I lack sympathy. I tried to explain to the court that I was self-employed and couldn’t serve because of the financial strain. They didn’t care. Not a valid excuse. (Even being convicted of a crime was not an excuse to this court.)

I was at a party last year when I mentioned that I had been called and was going to do my damndest to get out of it. My frineds sorta jumped on me about not doing my civic duty. I got a bit peeved and challenged them to raise their hands if they had ever been called to JD. One hand went up along with mine. I kept it going:

“Who served on a actual jury?”

My hand stayed up, the other hand went down. This was too easy.

“Anyone been called 2 times to serve?”

No hands remained up, except mine.

“Three times?”

Again, only me. I kept going until I shamed them. I have been called to jury duty SEVEN times!!! and served on four juries - all in the last 10 years!! It’s gotten so bad that I have decided to sell my home and move from the jurisdiction just to get off the jury rolls.

The final straw was being called last year. It made me mad because I had served less than a year before. I personally went to the Superior court to complain. The clerk could not find me on the list and asked for the summons. Looking at it she says I’m in the wrong court and directed me to another building down the street. I go there.

I walk in and it’s an, “Oh, S**T!” moment. Marble and mahogany are everywhere. I look at the building directory and I recognize the names of the judges. This ain’t Superior Court, or anything like it. It’s the District Court, as in Federal District Court. This is where they do United States V. Microsoft kinds of cases that run months. Here I find out the good news/bad news. Good: the case is on delay and they don’t need me. The bad: Serving on the Superior Court does not count against being called to the Federal District Court. They keep a different list, and they also can call me every other year. Best news of all, is that since they call on different years, I now eligible to be called every stinking year!!! by one court or the other.

My first trial went down to a mistrial. After 9 days (!!!) of trial and deliberation, we couldn’t come to a decision on whether to send some poor black kid that was just a loser in life, a minimum of TWO YEARS in jail over less than a ¼ of a gram of coke, in a sting (there was no real buyer). (As a side note, the one juror who created the most doubt about the coke and its size was a Ph.D. chemist at NIH.) At the end of the trial the defense and prosecution came into the jury room to ask about our decision (it’s allowed and we can ask questions back). The two (Two! Count’em, TWO) prosecutors were both women, attractive, and sharp as hell. I ask the lead why they hell would they bother to prosecute this schmuck, especially considering the infinitesimal amount of coke. Here’s her reply:

“ It is THE POLICY of the Justice Department to prosecute ALL drug cases .”

So, there you have it. The Law and Order and “Lock’em up!!” guys in the Bush I administration and the Justice Department thought that taking people like you and I from our jobs for frivolous cases was just peachy. This kid was no drug kingpin and they knew it. He was just someone being ground into the dirt for reasons of policy. Lock up the losers in life, take others from their careers; all to demonstrate to the public just how “Tough” you are on crime. “Real” cases dealing with the 1st and 4th amendments, or the S&L scandals were put aside. The drug stuff was clogging all court calendars. And they bitch about four judges.

[Silverhair]

31. I hope I would be able to leave my political anger outside...

the courtroom and do justice in the case.

[BiggJawn]

32. And Noelle Bush, too...

What, if you're rich and white you cannot be found guilty of possession?

Why limit it only to rich white ReTHUGlicans? I think it ought to apply to blacks and other minorities, too.

And I only lose ONE day of work waiting to be excused from jury duty that way....

[tlb]

48. I don't read the Inquirer but I don't think it's that simple.

My understanding is Rush was never caught with controlled substances. Moreover the local prosecutor said in a news story that the maid's tape recordings of Rush were inadmissible in Fla courts. He has admitted a drug problem but as far as I know, has not admitted a specific crime.

Whatever the truth and reality of his situation, that may very well not permit a prosecution. Sometimes the law "is a ass", sometimes not. A bad result in one case should have no carryover to a proper case.

[buddhamama]

51. have to disagree

in the hypothetical.

let me start off by saying, i do not support our current drug laws so i'd be hard pressed to find anyone guilty on drug charges.

however, what you are suggesting is exactly what has lead to the injustices in our judicial system.

we can not pick and choose when the law is applied. if we on the left were to resort to that behavior for revenge,personal feelings,etc, than we are no better than repubs.

i am working towards equal justice in our society.

[Scott Lee]

53. Keep tabs on "the investigation into Limbaugh is continuing"

I'll bet you a dozen megadittos that it soon falls into the Forgotten Bin and quietly falls from public memory.

Solomon is correct. If this had been a poorer Black person buying his drugs in a brown bag through clandestine parking lot transactions, he'd already be doing time. You all know this.

[monobrau]

58. I would nullify any pot case.

And any small time possesion case.

[bearfartinthewoods]

65. i'd be tempted to too....on general opposition to the WOD.

[Roark]

69. Hell yes!

"Unless of course the defendant appears to be a freeper in which case I would throw the book at them."

That is great!

HAHAHAHHA

[9215]

72. This is about as serious an issue as there is

There is nothing that destroys the credibility of our institutions more than a double standard on crimes like this. It is absolutely sickening.

The neo-cons, by condoning this, are the greatest threat to domestic peace there is. They can never complain about the Dems being soft on crime again.