Charles Murray wrote a great column on the concept of duty and other lost virtues. Read it.
well said
One of my favorites at NRO, Andy McCarthy, finds a unique angle on a much discussed issue. He explains why many of Sotomayor’s statements would disqualify her from serving on the average jury. The opening clip:
In every trial – every single trial – judges solemnly instruct American citizens who are compelled to perform jury duty that they will have a sworn obligation to decide cases objectively – without fear or favor. If a person is unwilling or unable to do that, if the person believes he or she has a bias or prejudice, especially one based on a belief that people are inferior or superior due to such factors as race, ethnicity, or sex, the person is not qualified to be a juror. Indeed, prospective jurors are told that they are not qualified if they harbor even the slightest doubt about their ability to put such considerations aside and render an impartial verdict. If the judge or the lawyer for either side senses bias, the juror is excused “for cause” – the parties are not even required to use their discretionary (or “peremptory”) jury challenges to strike such a juror; rather the judge makes a finding that the juror is not fit to serve.
And the conclusion:
Would Judge Sotomayor be qualified to serve as a juror? Let’s say she forthrightly explained to the court during the voir dire (the jury-selection phase of a case) that she believed a wise Latina makes better judgments than a white male; that she doubts it is actually possible to “transcend [one's] personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law”; and that there are “basic differences” in the way people “of color” exercise ”logic and reasoning.” If, upon hearing that, would it not be reasonable for a lawyer for one (or both) of the parties to ask the court to excuse her for cause? Would it not be incumbent on the court to grant that request?
Should we have on the Supreme Court, where jury verdicts are reviewed, a justice who would have difficulty qualifying for jury service?
Las Vegas Sun political analyst Jon Ralston nails one, but good.
I challenge you to read every single word. Then, if you live in Nevada, take a moment to feel some deep-seated disgust at the passing of a neutered campaign finance disclosure bill that won’t even kick in until 2011. Then contact your Assembly representative to demand that they give the bill’s balls back (and perhaps lend a pair to GOP Assemblyman James Settelmeyer, whose objections against the measure seem pretty wimpy).
And while you’re at it, contact Sec. of State Ross Miller’s office to suggest that they make online filing easier. Chuck Muth said the following about the process as it exists now:
I have a PAC (political action committee) and once tried filing my [financial report] online. And I gotta tell you, it was a royal pain in the you-know-what. The process set up by the Secretary of State’s office is decidedly not user-friendly and is unduly complicated to navigate and complete. No wonder so many candidates, PACs, and ballot advocacy groups opt to simply fill out the forms by hand.
Miller is on the right track pushing for online reporting, but he also needs to get his own house in order. It shouldn’t be too difficult to allow campaigns using, say, Quickbooks, to import the required information directly into the campaign reporting system at the SoS’s office instead of having to type it out separately a second time.
Timely online transparency should be a requirement not only for campaign finance reporting, but for all publicly funded agencies and organizations. It’s something we can all agree on – or should.
Subject link: Check out the Nevada Project at Sunshine Review.
