Apparently, a New York City judge has sentenced a prospective juror to indefinite jury service because she expressed racist views on a jury questionaire (H/T Bib. Chr). Now let that one sink in a little bit.
First of all, I'd expect a judge to have some idea of what the 13th Amendment actually means, and how it would preclude this sort of thing. So to put it mildly, Judge Garaufis needs to be removed from the bench and disbarred, as this is a pretty basic thing in the Constitution that anyone who lives anywhere near "Harlem" ought to appreciate. Of course, Garaufis has some good company in the President, who also does not seem to appreciate the 13th Amendment, bizaarely, and some more in Charles Rangel, who seems to score a hypocrisy hat trick in not only being black and clueless about the 13th Amendment, but also grew up in the Jim Crow era, has a law degree, and lives in Harlem.
Next, any decent lawyer ought to appreciate what using "bigoted slave labor" on juries will do to any verdict arrived at by that jury--it's more or less an automatic mistrial any time the juror would be trying a case involving a hispanic, black, or asian defendant or victim, and a good shot at a mistrial ruling even when no-one of these racial/ethnic groups is involved. Again, the Ivy League-educated jurist needs to be not only de-benched, but disbarred.
Don't they teach logic at Columbia Law anymore?
Lee v. Tam: Why "The Slants" trademark dispute matters - Supreme Court To Hear The Slants' Trademark Case This Week Excerpt: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments this week for a trademark dispute ...
9 hours ago