MAGAThread XVII: All Things NOT Impeachment

[Chernoslavia]

I am here to disprove the notion that people have a ''right'' to someone else's goods or services. Not argue about what healthcare will do or how many people support it.

Gideon v Wainwright would say otherwise.

No it doesn't. It reinforces the Constitutional responsibility of a state government to provide an attorney to someone who can't afford one and reinforces the right to counsel.

[Tarsonis]

There you have it, folks, jury trials are communism. Innocent people forced to provide a service to accused criminals, and the criminal doesn't even have to pay.

That's a duty. Forcing people to attend jury duty isn't considered a right anywhere in the US.

Sure, but that duty provides the right for said criminal. Thus, one can be entitled to the services of others, if that service is considered a legally required civic duty.

[The Black Forrest]

There you have it, folks, jury trials are communism. Innocent people forced to provide a service to accused criminals, and the criminal doesn't even have to pay.

I think I get $7 a day out of the deal. Not even enough to cover lunch.

In my case; I had to turn the money over to my company as they paid my salary while I was there.

[Tarsonis]

Gideon v Wainwright would say otherwise.

No it doesn't. It reinforces the Constitutional responsibility of a state government to provide an attorney to someone who can't afford one and reinforces the right to counsel.

Legal counsel is a service, is it not?

[Cannot think of a name]

I think I get $7 a day out of the deal. Not even enough to cover lunch.

In my case; I had to turn the money over to my company as they paid my salary while I was there.

Shakes fists impotently at the gig economy...

[Ifreann]

There you have it, folks, jury trials are communism. Innocent people forced to provide a service to accused criminals, and the criminal doesn't even have to pay.

That's a duty. Forcing people to attend jury duty isn't considered a right anywhere in the US.

There is a right to a trial by jury. Sixth Amendment. Anyone accused of a crime can exercise their right to a trial by jury and thus force jurors to provide that service to them. Not to mention judges and bailiffs, and of course the attorneys who may be forced to provide counsel to a person who cannot afford to hire an attorney. I assume you oppose all these things, yes?

[Cannot think of a name]

That's a duty. Forcing people to attend jury duty isn't considered a right anywhere in the US.

There is a right to a trial by jury. Sixth Amendment. Anyone accused of a crime can exercise their right to a trial by jury and thus force jurors to provide that service to them. Not to mention judges and bailiffs, and of course the attorneys who may be forced to provide counsel to a person who cannot afford to hire an attorney. I assume you oppose all these things, yes?

Oh man, I really hope that my eventual jury duty is for a dude being a dick about something really small and demanding a jury trail.

[Chernoslavia]

That's a duty. Forcing people to attend jury duty isn't considered a right anywhere in the US.

There is a right to a trial by jury. Sixth Amendment. Anyone accused of a crime can exercise their right to a trial by jury and thus force jurors to provide that service to them. Not to mention judges and bailiffs, and of course the attorneys who may be forced to provide counsel to a person who cannot afford to hire an attorney. I assume you oppose all these things, yes?

But forcing people to be in a jury isn't considered a right, it's considered more of a responsibility.

[Tarsonis]

There is a right to a trial by jury. Sixth Amendment. Anyone accused of a crime can exercise their right to a trial by jury and thus force jurors to provide that service to them. Not to mention judges and bailiffs, and of course the attorneys who may be forced to provide counsel to a person who cannot afford to hire an attorney. I assume you oppose all these things, yes?

But forcing people to be in a jury isn't considered a right, it's considered more of a responsibility.

Thus

That's a duty. Forcing people to attend jury duty isn't considered a right anywhere in the US.

Sure, but that duty provides the right for said criminal. Thus, one can be entitled to the services of others, if that service is considered a legally required civic duty.

[Bear Stearns]

There is a right to a trial by jury. Sixth Amendment. Anyone accused of a crime can exercise their right to a trial by jury and thus force jurors to provide that service to them. Not to mention judges and bailiffs, and of course the attorneys who may be forced to provide counsel to a person who cannot afford to hire an attorney. I assume you oppose all these things, yes?

Oh man, I really hope that my eventual jury duty is for a dude being a dick about something really small and demanding a jury trail.

The one time I was selected for jury duty was for such a case. The monetary value of the damages was less than $5,000.

[The Black Forrest]

There is a right to a trial by jury. Sixth Amendment. Anyone accused of a crime can exercise their right to a trial by jury and thus force jurors to provide that service to them. Not to mention judges and bailiffs, and of course the attorneys who may be forced to provide counsel to a person who cannot afford to hire an attorney. I assume you oppose all these things, yes?

Oh man, I really hope that my eventual jury duty is for a dude being a dick about something really small and demanding a jury trail.

If you hate your job; a murder case tends to keep you there.

You know how we can solve the state oppressing people to do jury duty? Offer pints. Would make for interesting court cases.

[Chernoslavia]

That's a duty. Forcing people to attend jury duty isn't considered a right anywhere in the US.

Sure, but that duty provides the right for said criminal. Thus, one can be entitled to the services of others, if that service is considered a legally required civic duty.

In the same manner that gun stores provide for our right to bear arms, that doesn't mean any individual has to provide me with a gun. Nope, just because a country mandates that people provide something to others doesn't mean they are entitled to it.

[Ifreann]

There is a right to a trial by jury. Sixth Amendment. Anyone accused of a crime can exercise their right to a trial by jury and thus force jurors to provide that service to them. Not to mention judges and bailiffs, and of course the attorneys who may be forced to provide counsel to a person who cannot afford to hire an attorney. I assume you oppose all these things, yes?

Oh man, I really hope that my eventual jury duty is for a dude being a dick about something really small and demanding a jury trail.

I'll see that Quimby boy hang for this!

---

There is a right to a trial by jury. Sixth Amendment. Anyone accused of a crime can exercise their right to a trial by jury and thus force jurors to provide that service to them. Not to mention judges and bailiffs, and of course the attorneys who may be forced to provide counsel to a person who cannot afford to hire an attorney. I assume you oppose all these things, yes?

But forcing people to be in a jury isn't considered a right, it's considered more of a responsibility.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is, clearly, a right to a trial by jury. Therefore there is a right to the services of jurors.

[Tarsonis]

Oh man, I really hope that my eventual jury duty is for a dude being a dick about something really small and demanding a jury trail.

If you hate your job; a murder case tends to keep you there.

You know how we can solve the state oppressing people to do jury duty? Offer pints. Would make for interesting court cases.

Judge:"Objection sustained. The Jury will disregard the sheriff's testimony."

Juror: *hic* "Why? What'd he say"

Judge: "exactly"

[Chernoslavia]

Oh man, I really hope that my eventual jury duty is for a dude being a dick about something really small and demanding a jury trail.

I'll see that Quimby boy hang for this!

---

But forcing people to be in a jury isn't considered a right, it's considered more of a responsibility.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is, clearly, a right to a trial by jury. Therefore there is a right to the services of jurors.

It is not a fucking right. Just because the government says so doesn't make it so.

[Cannot think of a name]

Oh man, I really hope that my eventual jury duty is for a dude being a dick about something really small and demanding a jury trail.

If you hate your job; a murder case tends to keep you there.

You know how we can solve the state oppressing people to do jury duty? Offer pints. Would make for interesting court cases.

I freelance and kind of dig my job (despite me putting off doing it right now...)jThough I probably could still maintain and jury an interesting trial. I'll try not to lose my summons this time. Apparently if you don't remember all that shit you can't get back into the portal.

[New haven america]

I'll see that Quimby boy hang for this!

---

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is, clearly, a right to a trial by jury. Therefore there is a right to the services of jurors.

It is not a fucking right. Just because the government says so doesn't make it so.

Next time you bring up anything having to do with the 2nd Amendment I'm going to quote this post right back to you.

[Chernoslavia]

It is not a fucking right. Just because the government says so doesn't make it so.

Next time you bring up anything having to do with the 2nd Amendment I'm going to quote this post right back to you.

Do it. And watch how you'll get proven wrong.

[New haven america]

Next time you bring up anything having to do with the 2nd Amendment I'm going to quote this post right back to you.

Do it. And watch how you'll get proven wrong.

How can I be proven wrong? Just cause the government says something is a right doesn't mean it's a right.

[Ifreann]

I'll see that Quimby boy hang for this!

---

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is, clearly, a right to a trial by jury. Therefore there is a right to the services of jurors.

It is not a fucking right. Just because the government says so doesn't make it so.

So you are against the right to a trial by jury? Or are you taking a position that people accused of crimes do get jury trials, but it's some other kind of good law thing and not a right?

[Tarsonis]

I'll see that Quimby boy hang for this!

---

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

There is, clearly, a right to a trial by jury. Therefore there is a right to the services of jurors.

It is not a fucking right. Just because the government says so doesn't make it so.

How is this difficult?

The Civic duty performed by the providing the service, allows for the right to a jury trial to be fulfilled for said defendant. Thus, one can be entitled to the services of others, if that service is considered a legally required civic duty.

[Tarsonis]

Do it. And watch how you'll get proven wrong.

How can I be proven wrong? Just cause the government says something is a right doesn't mean it's a right.

Depends on how we define rights.

[Chernoslavia]

Do it. And watch how you'll get proven wrong.

How can I be proven wrong? Just cause the government says something is a right doesn't mean it's a right.

The natural right to bear arms doesn't mean anyone has to provide you with a gun for the umpteenth time. If the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed tommorrow I'd still consider the right to bear arms a right.

[New haven america]

How can I be proven wrong? Just cause the government says something is a right doesn't mean it's a right.

The natural right to bear arms doesn't mean anyone has to provide you with a gun for the umpteenth time. If the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed tommorrow I'd still consider the right to bear arms a right.

But by your own admission, ust cause current government says it's a right doesn't mean it's a right.

[Chernoslavia]

The natural right to bear arms doesn't mean anyone has to provide you with a gun for the umpteenth time. If the 2nd Amendment were to be repealed tommorrow I'd still consider the right to bear arms a right.

Just cause current government says it's a right doesn't mean it's a right.

You have no valid argument.