Political Correctness In the Courtroom

Political correctness, the invention of the radical Left for
the purpose of censoring speech and actions by anyone on
the Right, including putting pressure on to self-censor oneself
so as to avoid balefully disapproving reactions, has
wormed it way into many areas of our society --- all levels
of government, education, entertainment, even the military
--- and now has made its way into our courts.

For the entire history of our country U.S. law has guarded
jury verdicts from being overturned due to bias or juror
misconduct. Late last winter, before the late Justice Antonin
Scalia's Supreme Court seat was filled with the appointment
and confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch, a temporary liberal
Supreme Court majority has scuttled this protection with the
creation of an exception for racial bias, never mind that it did
not supply a clearly defined means of identifying bias with a
limiting principle to guard against political mischief to
accompany this exception.

Just recently, after a Colorado jury convicted a Mexican
defendant in a sexual harassment case, two jurors signed
affidavits stating that a retried police officer also serving
on the jury made racially hostile remarks during deliberations.
The juror in question was reported to have stated that
"nine times out of ten Mexican men were guilty of being
aggressive toward women and young girls," as well as having
made other statements of a similar nature. The defendant's counsel
tried to get the conviction overturned based on racial animus
but the trial judge denied the request.

Now, the Sixth Amendment guarantees a trial by an impartial
jury, and our legal system has many protections against juror
bias and misconduct, including screening potential jurors for
bias in voir dire, a French term meaning "to see, to speak"
applied to the process of determining the qualifications of a
prospective juror to serve on a jury in a trial. Furthermore,
the judge and counsel for both the plaintiff and the defendant
can discipline a juror for any and all misconduct, including
speaking or acting in a biased manner. Additionally, the other
eleven jurors can monitor for such behavior and report any
infractions.

So the Court overturned these protective guidelines in a 5-3
majority opinion in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, claiming that
racial bias is so common that if left unaddressed, "systemic
injury to the administration of justice" would occur. And with
this declaration a new racial standard was also declared, one
for overturning jury verdicts that was rejected by Colorado
and has no basis to be found in the Constitution. Conservative
justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent "Although the Court tries
to limit the degree of intrusion, it is doubtful that there are
principled grounds for preventing the expansion of today's
holding,"

The ruling is a frightening move toward infecting juries with
political standards based on left-wing dogma on race, gender,
gender orientation, and class. Both Congress and the President
should utilize the System of Checks and Balances which the three
branches of our federal government have to police each other's
actions with an eye to upholding and preserving our constitutional
rule of law to make the Supreme Court rethink this perilous flight
of progressive fancy.


MEM