Kyle Rittenhouse was interviewed the other night on Tucker Carlson and in his discourse he mentioned holding Whoopi Goldberg accountable for her slander that Rittenhouse was a murderer. Having called him this after his being acquitted by a ‘jury of his peers,’ he mentioned.
Personally, I hope he collects. But that is another point.
The Founders were almost immediately, post-1787, thrown into the process of amending “The greatest document devised by man,” before they had any hope of getting at least three-fourths ratifications (by the states, not the conglomeration of people). This first action taken under Article V became known as The Bill of Rights. These were the first ten amendments.
The “Founders” were not discussing a Bill of Rights that some Constitution could give to men. The Founders had no such authority to create rights even if they claimed such. They were discussing God-given rights that men were endowed with (by their Creator).
Therefore, the concept of an “impartial jury” as opposed to the popular media ballyhoo of “Jury of one’s peers” was what they found in their deliberation (and prayer) and was what God probably had in mind.
The “peers” version evolved early from Magna Carta and was English dogma at the time (still is) whereby men were judged by those who knew each other best. For example, a group of plumbers (today) would best know whether a plumber had been righteous or whether he was telling the truth or not with regard to a piping system he had installed. A similar concept can be seen in parents and their children (as opposed to someone else’s children).
But an impartial jury means those who are willing to listen to testimony without prejudice or preconceived notions.
"*" indicates required fields
And the Founders considered that this was a better concept. That is a “peers” jury would always be rife with the temptation to inject the modern phrase “Good Ol’ Boy” justice. In other words, the “jury of one’s peers” was rejected by the Founders.
And an impartial jury doesn’t necessarily mean one that has not heard about the case or spoken about it. And the nonsense of sequestering juries so as not to have their impartiality tainted is ludicrous. Is the jury pool assumed to be a collection of morons that cannot deflect rumor or hearsay from the public’s outcry? If the answer is, they cannot be trusted with certainty, then why isn’t the judge in the dusty little hotel room, incommunicado, along with them? Isn’t he supposed to be impartial, with certainty? He is allowed to read the newspaper but the “idiot” jurors are not?
This is the sort of undercurrent of pseudo-Constitutional thought that gets fences built around capitol buildings.
But, on any given channel, on any given night, some Harvard law scholar will pronounce that everyone has a right to a trial by a “jury of his peers.” And, yes, the lawyer probably really does have a degree in law. God knows why!
But to the specific point: The most important personage in the courtroom, aside from the defendant, are the jurors, not the judge. And judging by the standards of law schools these days, it is possible, maybe even probable, that the jurors are more knowledgeable of the law than the judge (see Emmet Sullivan in Michel Flynn case, speaking of idiots and morons).
But more to the point, where does this sort of fictitious bilge come from without comment—or correction?
Probably via the same chumpy champs who glom onto words that sound good but are almost always ill-used: “exponential,” “impact,” “parse,” etc. I realize that all languages change, and colloquial verbiage is a useful form of communication. But when a beat-up old redneck like me can spot the obvious in the monologues, dialogues, soliloquies, ad chatter, then when does timely modification of language end and top-of-the-mart stupidity begin? And the law? Same thing.
Carrying that point to the law, somehow, we have an almost worship of many in government as if they are deities. The Supreme Court (a misnomer if there ever was one) are often ballyhooed as “our greatest legal minds.” Good grief, they are simply nine lawyers. Nine lawyers, seven of the current ones of whom in all probability cannot tell what the term “Supreme Court” meant in 1787. But that’s another tune for another dance.
So, if silliness of law via constant reverberations from the legal-beagles, such as “trial by a jury of his peers,” remains, who will teach the teachers?
The point is, with a limited free press, Big Tech’s scissors, and many in the “Media” utilizing free press as something akin to a teenage graffiti message, what we now have is an educated public akin to a public education. If that’s the case, we might as well leave the border open.
By Paul Yarbrough
Paul Yarbrough writes novels, short stories, poetry, and essays. His first novel. Mississippi Cotton is a Kindle bestseller. His author site can be found on Amazon. He writes political commentary for CommDigiNews.
Enjoy HUGE savings at My Pillow with promo code BSC
The views and opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Blue State Conservative. The BSC is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented.
Featured photo by Cliff, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons