Tuesday, July 3, 2012

New Hampshire Descralizes the Judiciary


Libertarians are often dead stupid about a lot of things---like being in favor of open borders when the only ethnic or racial group with any meaningful level of sympathy for their cause are Euro-Americans of English or German extraction.  But they also frequently unwittingly serve the cause of reaction.  Here's a case in point.  New Hampshire basically just passed a FIJA (fully informed jury association) law.  This is a massive step forward in the campaign to desacralize the judiciary, probably the center pillar of the Cathedral.  You see, there's something I doubt most of those who pushed this legislation understand about jury nullification.

It is an inherently escalative tool, leading to cycles of retaliation between the Cathedral and the unreconstructed public.  What does the Cathedral do, for instance, when lots of people start getting 'not guilty' by reason of 'who...whom'?  What do they do when their retaliation draws a counter-retaliation and so on?  What do they do when loose cannons decide to put down an 'archbishop' and 'who...whom' nullification is used in the ensuing  homicide trial?

Students of history know the answer to these questions.  They're not exactly alien to our American tradition.  In fact, jury nullification is mentioned indirectly in the Declaration of Independence.


joetexx said...

I didn't quite get your reference to archbishops at first; I was thinking of Sudbury (beheaded in 1381, peasant rebellion) or Laud (judicial lynching, 1645), neither of who got jury nullification. Then I realized that you are referring to officials of MM's Cathedral. 

So, say, a situation where some media maven keeps insisting that hiding the racial ID of criminal suspects is simply prudent professionalism, which the general public is too dense to understand. An irritated citizen draws a bead on him, and he walks in the ensuing jury trial. 

Is that it?

Jehu said...

That's pretty unlikely until a very high level of escalation is achieved---more likely said archbishop is a judge or some such, perhaps one that wanted to play 'double jeopardy' after an someone is aquitted due to nullification. But you get the general idea. By the time you see explicit targeting of MSM figures, you're pretty much in a hot civil war.

joetexx said...

I'm finding the refusal to allow pasted comments again, which is exasperating.

Check out Roger Devlin's essay on Rotating Polyandry part II on threats to family court judges who abuse divorced dads. This is where it could happen.

Jehu said...

Certainly I could see that happening--frankly I'm kind of surprised that it hasn't already.

Matthew said...

Strangers on a Train: Family Court Edition