8 Likes
People swearing into political positions get to pick their text of choice (or, in the case of Teddy Roosevelt, when he rushed to be sworn in, no text at all). Of course that doesn’t stop people from believing that a Christian bible is required, to the point where Roy Moore and his spokesman were convinced that politicians had to be Christian because otherwise they couldn’t take the oath of office.
This case was in New Jersey, weirdly enough. I would have been unsurprised had it been Alabama, given the blatant unconstitutional lack of church-state separation that’s standard operating procedure there, but…
Not me. Did you see the speech? All that horrible mugging he did. It was outright grotesque. It would turn my stomach to have to face that in person.
“…a person who refused to place his hand on the Bible was incapable of taking the oath seriously and was therefore incredible”
I know what is meant by that statement, it’s just this is what popped into my head.
Maybe she figured without that holy conduit touching his flesh, God wouldn’t be able to reach down and smite him for lying?
Do you mean how he looks at them to their faces, or behind their backs? If to their faces, then… become one of his frothing hoards, I guess? Although, for me, that wouldn’t be worth it.
indeed:
This appeal addresses a trial judge s post-verdict ex parte discussion with the jury. During the discussion, one juror commented about a witness s conduct when the witness took the oath prior to testifying. Counsel were informed of the comment. Concerns about the substance of the comment, as well as how it should have been handled, arose during post-verdict motion practice; those same concerns divided the Appellate Division majority and dissent in this appeal as of right.
Notwithstanding prior discouragement of such post-verdict ex parte discussions between a trial judge and jurors, the practice persists, as this matter demonstrates. To bring an end to such practices, we hold that under no circumstances may post-verdict discussions occur between the court and discharged jurors, unless those discussions are part of a hearing ordered on good cause shown pursuant to Rule 1:16-1. For the reasons that follow, we remand this matter for further proceedings.
2 Likes
4 Likes
Helpful hint: Don’t look “sloar” or “slore” up on urbandictionary…
I can only imagine how much that got people’s undies in a twist.
(keep up the good work!)
Really? Hmm… Technically… Does a juror have buddha nature? A koan for modern times.
(me, if I’m in the presence of the Buddha, I’m going to see if he/she wants to go out for some tater tots. There’s a place near me that makes AMAZING thai style tots.)
3 Likes
Same here. I see a “Jesus fish” on an ad for a business and it’s the same as the owner saying, “Don’t look into my background, just hand over your money.” I go elsewhere.
Years ago I had a boss that was drawn to such businesses and routinely had some tale of woe about being ripped off or shoddy workmanship. Real mystery that.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
