How goddamn stupid trump is...

Yesterday he said "I thought STRIKES were supposed to be "unlimited" when we were picking our jury"
Actually, how ignorant does he think the world is?

Having unlimited STRIKES would mean never sitting a jury.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

I don't even like the current strike system. A third party should be choosing the jury. Giving less jury interference by either side.

He wants to rig everything in his favor.

View 27 more replies »

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@Vin53 assumption. You think I don't recognize that I change.

Perspectives are everything when considering change.

In math it's represented as:
dx/dy WITH RESPECT to x!

The perspective is on x not y! For all you know I could be approaching infinity!

JSul3 · 70-79

@DeWayfarer Oh....some judges are elected by political party.
See Texas.

DeWayfarer · 61-69, M

@JSul3 yeh I know of Texas. Lived there. Yet I have been in 40 States. Most of them are not.

NerdyPotato · M

I never heard of strikes before, but according to Wikipedia they are unlimited as long as you can give a good enough reason for each. 🤔

[quote]Unlike a peremptory challenge there is no limit to the number of strikes for cause that attorneys on either side of a case can be granted. However, also unlike a peremptory challenge, a strike for cause must state a specific reason and be granted by the trial judge; often both attorneys and sometimes the judge will question the juror being challenged.[/quote]

View 3 more replies »

NerdyPotato · M

@Vin53 and with a cause that is unlimited. So what am I missing here? 🤔 It sounds like Trump was correct for once in his life.

ElwoodBlues · M

@NerdyPotato Trump was complaining about what your quote calls peremptory challenges, where no reason needs to be given for the strike. Each side has ten peremptory challenges.

NerdyPotato · M

@ElwoodBlues thanks! It makes sense for those not to be unlimited indeed. 🤦

Vin53 · M

What would be the point of holding a jury trial if the defendant could continuously deny every juror?

justanothername · 51-55, M

I think that’s the point he was trying to make. He does believe that he should be immune from any form of prosecution ESPECIALLY by the corrupt Democrats.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Add a comment...