Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> Hi Jackie,
>
> You are wrong. As Justice Stevens noted in his lone dissent the courts are
> very selective in their willingness to use polygraph results.
>
> Justice Thomas wrote the decision. He was smart enough to avoid the lie
> detector. Anita Hill passed hers.
>
Hi Terry
How can I be wrong--Thomas wrote the decision in which the majority agreed that
not introducing the polygraph did not deny Schffler of his constitutional
rights because it is of such a controversial nature. The lie detector is a
polygraph, it is the Keller polygraph--so why does Thomas writing polygraph
instead of lie detector mean anything at all??
And just because Hill took a polygraph and passed has absolutely no bearing on
this case or on Thomas writing the majority position. Seems like you are
saying that because he wrote the majority opinion, it must be biased and the
dissenting *minority* opinion of one is more valid.
And if you consider that your dissenting judge says the courts are very
selective in their willingness to use the polygraph, IMO, that means that most
courts do not feel it is reliable enough to be admissible--that is what I have
been saying from the beginning. If polygraphs were so all fired reliable
outside the laboratory protocols that ensure validity and reliability, the
majority of courts would not be so selective in their willingness to use it.
They would find it a godsend as it would help clear up the current backlog of
cases. And a lot more states would be using it, not just the one state you
continually mention, New Mexico. As far as military courts using it, this was
a military court that did not allow it and the Supreme Court sided with the
military court.
jackief
> . THOMAS, J., announced the
> >> judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with
> >> respect to Parts I, II-A, and II-D, in which REHNQUIST, C.J.,
> >> and O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, and BREYER,
> >> JJ., joined,
> and an opinion with respect to Parts II-B and II-
> >> C, in which REHNQUIST, C.J., and SCALIA and SOUTER, JJ.,
> >> joined. KENNEDY, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and
> >> concurring in the judgment, in which O'CONNOR, GINSBURG, and
> >> BREYER, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
> >>
> >> > Two rules in life:
> >> >
> >> > 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
> >> > 2.
> >> >
> >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
> >>
> >> --
> >> Two rules in life:
> >>
> >> 1. Don't tell people everything you know.
> >> 2.
> >>
> >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
> >
> >
> >
> >--
> >In the sociology room the children learn
> >that even dreams are colored by your perspective
> >
> >I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room"
> >
> >
> >
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
