So, with no quoted context and no threading, I interpret your analogy as SCOTUS majority : SB8 :: jury : aquitted
and the majority on the SCOTUS believe the TX law is right and good, yet the precedent of Roe v Wade is wrongfully applied or too harsh. And that's why they rejected the emergency injunction. That we have no methodology on the part of the jurors from which to induce patterns is simply too bad, so sad. Is that what you mean? On 9/13/21 12:20 PM, Jon Zingale wrote: > Waa! Cry me a river A.I. lovers. Jury nullification is fine. -- ☤>$ uǝlƃ - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. . FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
