Two words. Troy Davis.

Evidence, context, circumstance, objective logic, and arbitration.

Explain to me how the rituals of a courtroom establish true justice, Overcast.

Troy Davis was "found guilty" of murdering a cop. Even tho all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Casey Anthony was "found innocent" of murdering her child. Even tho all the evidence suggests otherwise.

Trials are just ceremonies.

They don't determine anything but the conviction rates of lawyers.

>> ^xxovercastxx:


How do you propose we determine guilt or innocence without a trial?

Sorry, couldn't take my eyes of the pretty girl with the Troy Davis sign.

also good cause.

>> ^petpeeved:

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^petpeeved:
I think the Onion needs to do a piece about news anchors who flip pages of text during a report but never even glance at them once.

By all means, let an inconsequential detail let the substance of what was said be rendered meaningless to you.

Not that I feel like I should explain myself to someone who presumes to understand how I feel about something based on a single observation but in this one case I'll make an exception in the hope that you think twice before getting on a high horse and gratifying what appears to me to be an unhealthy superiority complex.
Simply put: you have no idea if that "inconsequential detail" made the substance of what was said meaningless to me. In fact, I spent many hours tuned into Democracy Now's live coverage of Troy Davis's brief hold on execution praying (in a secular way) that he'd be pardoned. I just found this particular anchor's mindless page turning to be incredibly distracting for the obvious prop that it was.


Well your name is "petpeeved" so already you're a whiny alternative fuck who doesn't know anything about the world and should just stay put in your little apartment with your cat named Barthalomew. Also your name is Kenneth and you work at Subway.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^petpeeved:
I think the Onion needs to do a piece about news anchors who flip pages of text during a report but never even glance at them once.

By all means, let an inconsequential detail let the substance of what was said be rendered meaningless to you.


Not that I feel like I should explain myself to someone who presumes to understand how I feel about something based on a single observation but in this one case I'll make an exception in the hope that you think twice before getting on a high horse and gratifying what appears to me to be an unhealthy superiority complex.

Simply put: you have no idea if that "inconsequential detail" made the substance of what was said meaningless to me. In fact, I spent many hours tuned into Democracy Now's live coverage of Troy Davis's brief hold on execution praying (in a secular way) that he'd be pardoned. I just found this particular anchor's mindless page turning to be incredibly distracting for the obvious prop that it was.

Here's a good commentary by Paul Campos speculating about Scalia's possible motivations for this wording. Campos translates the objection into non-legal terms thus:

“The defense in this case is claiming that there’s something unusual about Troy Davis’ situation, requiring extraordinary action on the part of the Supreme Court. But there’s nothing unusual about his situation. The American legal system routinely sentences people to long prison terms and even to death on the basis of dubious evidence, in trials featuring overburdened, underfunded, and marginally competent defense lawyers. Obviously under such conditions (a lot of) mistakes are going to be made. If such mistakes make verdicts unconstitutional, then the whole system is unconstitutional.”