Yes, it’s true. This man has no dick.

No, no, it was originally “Taking God’s name in vein,” as saying the name of God out loud would allow Him into your blood. If you say the name of God, you allow him to inhabit your blood, gain your power, and become even more mighty. The ancient Hebrews feared God gaining too much power, as He would be able to destroy the world. Then Christians figured out that if they took Communion and instead drank the blood of Christ, they could reverse the Hebrew God’s power and slowly increase their own until they could ascend to the heavens and do battle with the Almighty, empowered by His blood in their veins, rather than weakened by taking His name in vein. In this seventeen-part essay, I will describe how we can defeat God by

We apologize for this inappropriate comment. Those responsible have been sacked.

I replied to the other thread before you, but it’s a good point that atrociously unjust laws are good targets for jury nullification. Bathroom laws are a good example, although I fear that we wouldn’t necessarily be on a jury where all other 11 members agree with us that it is an obvious violation of a trans person’s rights, sadly. Especially in the states where those laws exist. A hung jury, where not everybody agrees is better than a conviction, but a “not guilty” verdict can’t be re-tried (in almost all circumstances).

Okay, that’s fair. I was thinking more along the lines of when the law is questionable, not patently unjust , as you put it.

And Jim Crow laws are a good example, as are sodomy laws that essentially outlawed gay relationships for a long time in many states (struck down by Lawrence v. Texas, but not until 2003!). Usually when people think of jury nullification (outside of the more recent obvious case), they’re thinking along the lines of drug laws, which are often grey. Both of those examples probably DO warrant nullification.

That being said, I think it’s unlikely that a case which can get 9 12 jurors to oppose it based on an unjust law would occur in a state where that law exists. Those sodomy laws I referenced were mostly only present in conservative states by 2003. However, federal laws might be more susceptible, as a state that’s the opposite political ideology of the current US government could have a jury like that.

But I’ll concede the point that atrociously immoral or unjust laws could and should be targets for jury nullification. It’s a good addition.

This is really important. You can disagree with laws, but that feels like a terrible reason to nullify a legitimate guilty decision.

In addition, sentencing is (usually) separate from conviction and is the judge’s decision, although a jury can recommend a sentence. If someone is found guilty of theft for stealing a loaf of bread, they’re not going to get 20 years in jail except in musicals.

IMO, nullification should be used as an absolute last resort. Have a sympathetic defendant accused of second degree murder? Knock it down to a lower-level manslaughter and find them guilty. The sentencing of that might have a low maximum.

There are only a few rare problems that actually need nullification. It (generally) shouldn’t just be used for laws that you disagree with. One such problem is mandatory sentencing minimums. If someone steals that load of bread and they’ve already been convicted twice for theft or other crimes, they may be subject to things like 3-strike laws and get a sentence that is WAY more than they deserve, and the judge can’t do anything about it. The judge might feel that they deserve to give only 20 hours of community service as a sentence, but they legally have to sentence the convicted to 6 months in prison. Nullification is probably warranted there. Someone found with 1.25 ounces of marijuana in a state where only 1 ounce is legal, so they get charged with a drug distribution felony? And the judge/prosecutor refuses to lower the charge? Maybe find them not guilty. But it should be the last resort, not the first option.

I’ve found that as an Older Millennial, I actually relate to Gen Z quite a bit and get along with them well. It’s Gen Alpha that I never have any idea what the hell they’re talking about.

L8er sk8ers!

I don’t think this is the original album cover. I remember that Weird Al was on the CD I had.

Space is hard. You’re strapping something inside a big tube with basically directed explosives at the bottom, hoping it survives the trip, then subjecting it to constant radiation, huge temperature swings, and other brutal environmental factors like micrometeoroids. Just because we’ve been sending satellites and people up to space for nearly 70 years doesn’t mean it’s gotten easier; we’re just better at knowing what to expect so we can test for it. Failures in rockets or satellites or even manned spacecraft are going to happen as much as we work to prevent them.

Anyone else hate that the Gadsden flag has been appropriated by ultra-libertarian jingoists? It’s an awesome-looking flag with a cool history and symbolism, but I feel like I couldn’t fly it without looking like a twat.