326
People can still be kicked off juries for being LGBTQ+. This out congresswoman's bill would end that
(www.lgbtqnation.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
326 points (97.4% liked)
politics
19223 readers
2705 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Do US juries need a reason to kick people off? Isn't it like both sides in a case get to throw off a set amount of people?
To me, the whole article seems like the US justice system coming apart at the seams because of it having two publics with two sets of norms.
Pretty much. Both sides go back and forth.
If you never been in jury duty, both sides look at the selected jurors (sometimes 20-40 ppl) and their goal is to shave it to a smaller number, like 12.
Wear gauges? Have purple hair? Be a person of color?
If you don't fit a specific profile to help them win... You're gone.
During one of the selected cases where I was part of being selected, they absolutely asked you questions about your job and family, to get a sense of your background.
Interesting. So if you wanna get kicked out just wear a Mohawk and fake ear piercings to make it clear you're punk.
[redacted]
So, technically, the USA has what is called "Protected Classes" such as race, ethnicity, and disability who, for the reason of being who they are, cannot be excluded or disadvantaged as a result of.
In most of the USA, sexual orientation or other identities are not in any way protected.
Except for like a buttload of nuances and small changes and court decisions over the course of a century or two.
The point op is making though is that in court a attorny can strike people with minimal reason. Which includes all those protected classes. They have a limited amount of those strikes but they can do whatever they want with them.
For instance, if the person on trial is part of "religion A" and that religion is known to stick together with a cult like fervor an attorney could strike strike a juror of religion A for "cause".