Pips

Never mind that California probably has more conservatives than most conservative states...

As much as most people on the left want juries to nullify in cases of unfair or unjust laws, the reality is it mostly results in murderous cops going free and corporations getting free passes. Like I said in another comment, while jury nullification could be used to tackle unfair laws, the reality is you mostly end up with actual racists and actively harmful corporations not being held accountable. Jury nullification is itself not good or bad, but it's mostly used for bad. Frankly, I don't really love the jury system but that's a while bigger issue.

No, juries are the triers of fact. Juries do not exist to make a determination as to whether the law is fair or not and are (usually) explicitly told this. They have to listen to the facts, decide what actually happened, and then whether the facts match the elements of whatever crime is being charged.

I agree that getting a jury of twelve randomish peers is actually not the greatest system, but it's what we're working with. So in this paradigm, jury nullification is a huge problem because it's twelve random people just deciding not to enforce a law the rest of society (sort of) has said needs to be enforced. This in turn leads to white supremacists getting acquitted by juries after prosecutors proved beyond a doubt that the defendants committed the crime and the same happening with police that abuse their powers.

It could end up working to protect civil liberties. But the reality is it mostly results in the status quo being upheld and/or actual criminals that need some kind of punishment being acquitted.

Jury nullification is also why cops who murder people and klansmen get acquitted. It's not necessarily a good thing, just a quirk of the system.

While China is considered part of the global south, its economy is so massive and it is so influential globally it really shouldn't be.

Edit: Also in China's case, that was the UK, not the US.

Lincoln did it. He suspended habeas during the War.

If he was trying to keep his clearance, then he would strive to avoid any appearance of mental health issues. Strictly speaking you're still encouraged to take care of your mental health, but you have no confidentiality in your mental health records if you have a clearance and certain psychological issues can be a cause to deny or revoke a clearance. Many clearance-holders opt to avoid therapy and other mental health treatments as a result.

Tolerance is a real thing and can be developed over time. However it's not clear if that has any relation to cancer risk, which appears to be related to ability to clear the aldehyde byproduct.

Yeah, the studies generally point to a cumulative effect. Basically the aldehyde byproduct of alcohol breakdown is also poisonous. It can lead to cancer growths so arguably binge drinking is worse in that respect because it takes longer for everything to clear.

Interestingly, if there was a way to break that aldehyde down faster, then the cancer risk might go down significantly. It's just not super clear at this point.

Lieberman wasn't a Democrat.

Yeah mate, he tried. Congress didn't pass single-payer and he didn't anticipate that level of Republican hostility because it hadn't happened on that scale in the modern era of politics. So we got the ACA instead, which has likely saved thousands of lives just through no denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, let alone everything else it did.

Any coagulation of power is a structure for corruption to take place.

If that's the case, why are you participating in this moderated forum controlled by other people? Surely you're just feeding their inevitable corruption.