By FITSNews || That sound you hear is a little more air coming out of the “Republicans for Sheheen” balloon …
Former U.S. Ambassador and S.C. Speaker David H. Wilkins – who earlier this year backed a liberal Democrat for mayor of Columbia, S.C. – has decided to throw his weight behind Republican gubernatorial nominee Nikki Haley in November. In fact, Wilkins is reportedly organizing a fund-raiser for Haley in Greenville, S.C., where the local business community will no doubt drop some serious cash on the rising Republican star.
Back in March, Wilkins surprised many Republicans when he held an event for uber-liberal attorney Steve Morrison, who finished third in the Columbia mayoral race.
“Guess Wilkins has become just as much of a sellout as the RINOs they give his ‘leadership award‘ to,” we noted at the time.
Wilkins, who was reportedly stung by our criticism, has certainly flipped back to the fiscal conservative side of the ledger in endorsing Haley.
As we’ve noted on numerous occasions, despite his notoriously thin skin and “sad turtle” face Wilkins was infinitely superior to current Speaker Bobby Harrell. For example, he passed numerous reform items included on Gov. Mark Sanford’s legislative agenda and fought to block tax increases – not make them top legislative priorities.
Also, after a rocky start to his tenure as Ambassador to Canada, Wilkins ended up receiving near-universal praise for his efforts to improve relations between America and its trading partner.
By Ed July 9, 2010 at 1:13 pm
I like how this site thinks Wilkins was stung by criticism from this site. I can tell you Wilkins could not care less about what this site thinks about him. I guess when you have no credibility, you have to try to create some imaginary credibility.
As for Nookie Nikki, I hear every $50,000 raised gets you a blow job. $25,000 only gets you a hand job. It will be interesting to see how much Wilkins raises.
By Tunes'n''News July 9, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Wilkins and Morrison are both partners at Nelson Motors, right? It wasn’t political, it was about firm influence. A different type of sell out.
By politicalobserver July 9, 2010 at 1:47 pm
The last time I checked, Wilkins was chair of the Board of Trustees at Clemson. Given the ongoing incompetence and corruption in the administration of that university, should he really be getting more involved in politics? David, why don’t you attempt to clean up Sikes Hall instead of worrying about the Palin-endorsed zero who will become the next governor of South Carolina?
By fitsnews July 9, 2010 at 2:42 pm
Ed,
You are misinformed. Wilkins whines like a little bitch every time we take him out for a ride – at which point Christy Cox usually comes in to console him.
Lucky guy …
As for credibility, we never cared for it when we had it and we could care less if people think we’ve lost it.
If people like you don’t like what we have to say, then by all means take your happy asses to that Greenville News subscription site.
-FITS
By Catherine July 9, 2010 at 3:08 pm
FITS is totally delusional if they think anything they say/write matters to David Wilkins….Thanks for the laugh!
By reasonable July 9, 2010 at 3:09 pm
Morrison would have done amazing things for Columbia. He is known internationally for his excellence in practicing law, despite what topical idiotic diatribes were espoused about him here. He would have been a tremendous leader for our city. Columbia’s loss. Wilkins’ support of him was more likely an acknowledgment of his ability. Imagine that, though!
If we ever hope to emerge from this pit we’ve fallen in as state and country, we need to be able to work together. Instead of acting like whiny children and criticizing politicians for making wise choices as opposed to party line choices, we need to open our eyes to the fact that clinging to labels like “RINO” (a lot worn out already), “Tea Partier,” etc, etc., let’s encourage our politicians and political wannabes to THINK rather than parroting what they think people want to hear.
By Catherine July 9, 2010 at 3:10 pm
Ed,
Your analysis is dead-on. If this site didn’t have Balsak Tee Bahgar for entertainment, what would be the point? At this point very little credence can be given to this site regarding any “real journalism”. Its just a hoot to read the delusional ramblings. Once again, thanks for the entertainment!
By reasonable July 9, 2010 at 3:16 pm
The end of my last comment made no sense whatsoever in the review. What I meant to say was that we should stop demanding of politicians that walk a tightrope of party dogma. We would be in much better shape if we left tham with a bit more autonomy to make reasoned choices, instead of expecting them to line up behind every party member in every race (local, regional, etc.)and expecting them to tow the party line even when stubbornly doing so gets us absolutely nowhere. To wit: Mark Sanford.
By Fred July 9, 2010 at 3:22 pm
“That sound you hear is a little more air coming out of the “Republicans for Sheheen” balloon”
No, that sound you hear is the air that got sucked out of the Republican Party when they realized that their Gubernatorial candidate has chased off the Chamber and big business support!
Now all of big biz is on their knees in front of Sheheen asking him when to stop.
…and Nicki is just on her knees.
Pathetic for the party! SC is starting to figure out what Libertarian Principles are all about.
Fred
By Ed July 9, 2010 at 4:18 pm
Reasonable, you sound too reasonable.
By Balsak Tee Baghar July 9, 2010 at 5:18 pm
A beautiful example of an organic man!
Someone has dressed an uncircumcised penis at Men’s Wearhouse!
Nikki will love him dearly and make this little Wilkie stand tall and proud while they teabag vigorously together!
Welcome to our movement, fully-erect South Carolina Penis Man!
You are a stroking of great fortune!
Palin-Haley 2012!
I can see India from my house!
By TB July 9, 2010 at 6:01 pm
@ Old Bike Dude on July 8th, 2010 at 7:45 pm
“Will does your wife know you still love Nikki?”
Answer– She must know with all Will’s postings that indicate his favoritism & head over heel for his darling Nikki.
She definitely suffers a battered wife syndrome ’cause she just sits there letting Will pours out his love & faithfulness to the ex-lover.
Will is still the king of CDV, but this time it is an emotional CDV with a wife having a syndrome. How’s sad!
By fitsnews July 9, 2010 at 6:17 pm
TB-
Head over “heel?” Is Sic Willie an amputee?
Perhaps he emotionally batters Mrs. Sic w/ his prosthetic?
-FITS
By No Name July 9, 2010 at 9:58 pm
If David does not care about FITS fine….he clearly cares to support Halley….so the National RNC folks have let David( the second most powerful Goper in the State)… know …..because she creeps out Lindsey….that Nuckie is kind of like becoming a star and both Sarah and Romney and now even Newt seem Ok with her….so with 2012 the real issue to you honestly want the State in the hands of some Dem fuck.
Obviously no….so as much as it pisses off the Citadel mafia….Nuckie it is.
As to the job of running Clemson…..well the Men of Clemson are in a huddle on the Tanner Championship Ring and whether it means the curse is dead and both Jack and Dabo have one season to make it all go away.
Dabo can not lose the big game because Clemson folks just do not feel like this……come on Boyd get er done.
By CNSYD July 9, 2010 at 10:47 pm
politicalobserver, The ONLY Clemson employee who reports to Wilkins and the rest of the BoT is Barker. Apparently they are satisfied with him. If you have information that can be proven, I will assume you have communicated it directly to Wilkins and the other members of the BoT. If not, then why do you think posting it here will matter? Or is it just hearsay? I can tell you from personal experience that if you express LEGITIMATE concerns to members of the Clemson BoT they will investigate it and respond back to you.
By politicalobserver July 9, 2010 at 11:53 pm
CNSYD: Whether you realize it or not, every time you post here, attempting to defend what may be the most corrupt university administration in the United States, you are doing a disservice to nearly everyone associated with the university — people who have been waiting years for the cast of the Beverly Hillbillies to clear out so that a cleansing of the university’s soul can begin.
By BIN News Editorial Staff July 10, 2010 at 12:06 am
Thanks, Mr. Ed.
Our Funding Editor always smiles when one of to(xic) willie’s readers pokes him to the point he has to respond.
(xic) willie really does have a pale thin skin.
Of course, when our Funding Editor smiles it’s often hard to tell if it’s because (xic) willie has been taken to the woodshed by a reader or if her hemorrhoids are acting up again.
She always said xic) willie has a lot in common with her hemorrhoids.
By CNSYD July 10, 2010 at 12:30 am
poliicalobserver, Of the MANY friends and neighbors I have who are employed by Clemson, I have NEVER heard a single one express the sentiments that you do. Over the years did I hear them complain about other Presidents, e.g. Atchley? Yes. If you can not prove PROOF of your allegations to those in responsible charge and/or law enforcement, then I have no choice but to assume they are fantasy. You ought to also find a different forum in which to air your allegations as I know, as a result of direct conversation, that the founding editor of this blog has no credibility with those in the administration and that goes way back to before Troutman.
By politicalobserver July 10, 2010 at 1:00 am
CNSYD: You obviously have never read responses to the faculty survey or the staff survey, both of which tear apart the administration. There are hundreds of responses to review. You also apparently have never read affidavits in the Troutman case, which are NOT DISPUTED by the administration. If this state had anything resembling a news media, writing comments on blogs would not be necessary. Media outlets would have exposed the malignant sabotage of careers and the violation of federal whistle-blowing laws by administrators at the university. I suppose the university has spent $1 million on defense attorneys in the Troutman case because it has nothing to hide in a court of law.
By CNSYD July 10, 2010 at 2:03 am
politicalobserver, you are making my point. IF, and that is a big IF, violation of federal law has occurred then it is the task of the DOJ to take care of that and not the news media. So either it is fantasy or a huge conspiracy to which the DOJ is party. Which is it? Have the Troutman
affidavits and their authors been presented in open court where both sides can query them before a jury? Didn’t think so. Surveys of faculty would be the least thing that would lend any credence. The vast majority are extremely lazy and bitch and moan all the time. In the main they are clueless when it comes to business. Staff are also suspect when it comes to complaining. Having been involved in employee surveys in many settings, this is the chance for all those who have an axe to grind to vent their spleen. Many times they comment out of ignorance or either they are unhappy over events which are beyond the control of the employer. The best method is to hire an independent management audit team to conduct an audit. I would be shocked if a survey of faculty and staff at any institution stated that they were all happier than pigs in shit. Returning to Troutman, I believe it is incumbent on Troutman to prove his allegations. Have you ever read a law suit before? If you only went by what the plaintiff says in it you would think the defendant was guilty of unspeakable sins. Having been involved in assisting defendants of suits in construction cases, the way the plaintiff states all his allegation you wonder how the structure could bear its own weight. As is always the case, there are two sides to every story. Interestingly, when the money gets “right” it instantly mitigates all those concerns. Troutman was hired at the behest of a member of the BoT. Now Troutman wants to sue, among others, the BoT. Wonder what that Trustee thinks of Troutman now. The next step, as I understand it, in Troutman is in the hands of the Judge. I guess he is a part of the vast conspiracy also.
By politicalobserver July 10, 2010 at 11:57 am
CNSYD: Your attempts at logic are humorous. Hundreds of Clemson employees are merely grinding an axe in the staff and faculty surveys.
It is the job of the news media to report abuses of power, and in upstate South Carolina, the news media covering Clemson consists largely of sports writers and one woman who thought it would be neat to write for a newspaper. There is no such thing as accountability at Clemson, a university where excessively overpaid middle managers are bought off to keep their mouths shut, keep the troops in line, and help Barker lie and cheat his way to a top-20 magazine ranking.
You can trust me on this: If anyone is living a fantasy regarding Clemson, it is you.
By CNSYD July 10, 2010 at 2:08 pm
politicalobserver, you have avoided answering the question about the vast conspiracy that has suppressed the Federal law violations and also has a complict Federal Judge. Could it be that all your allegations do not even rise to the level of an allegation as they are false? Since you are obviously in possession of all this “evidence”, have you turned it over to law enforcement? If not, is it you who is obstructing justice?
Since I have been directly involved in employee surveys of organizations ranging from 40 people to one that employed more than 7,000, I know that every employee who has an issue sees the survey as their chance to “expose” the employer’s wrongdoing. I am sure you would be shocked to learn that many employees think they are overworked, underpaid, have terrible benefits, are passed over for promotion because they are not “friends” of management, and/or are abused by management. Equally shocking is that I have NEVER seen a survey in which an employee said they were overpaid.
By politicalobserver July 10, 2010 at 3:58 pm
CNSYD: There is no vast conspiracy. Once the evidence is heard in a court of law — and again, Clemson has spent approximately $1 million to keep that from happening — the guilty will be identified for all to see. It is only a matter of time.
By CNSYD July 11, 2010 at 3:34 pm
politicalobserver, I think you will find that in almost ALL civil litigation vs deep pocket defandants, the defendant (usually their insurance company) will go to great lengths to prevent a case, regardless of how specious it is, from going to trial? Trial lawyers know this. That is why they file all sorts of suits that hardly pass the common sense test. It is a form of legalized blackmail. Why do defendants not want to go to trial? Because usually the plaintiff is an individual and the defendant is a deep pocketed entity. A jury of “peers” is seldom equipped to understand the issues and the plaintiff’s attorney will play the poor little person being done in by this wealthy entity card. Juries will emphasize and figure the deep pocket entity can afford it and the plaintiff seems to be a nice person.
By Old Bike Dude July 12, 2010 at 7:44 am
Why do Canadians do it doggy style? So they can both watch the hockey game.
By Allen July 12, 2010 at 12:17 pm
That’s right, CNSYD.
In your native Glenn Beck Land there’s no such thing as discovery, witnesses, facts, affidavits, exhibits, summary judgment motions, directed verdicts . . . not even a judge to hear anything at all in the dispute.
Yes, our courts are only a bunch of happy juries pleased to be sitting around away from their homes and jobs, just waiting to award nice plaintiffs big boxes of money.
Because your post is uncontaminated by a fact of any kind, we may conclude that while you’re a quart low on intelligence, you’re 100 percent full of shit.
By SnakeMD July 12, 2010 at 6:15 pm
Catherine do you find BallSack the Teabagger entertaining? Is his scatalogical humor all that engaging? (all you USC Law grads, look this one up, it will enrich your vocab) He does have talent, but his avant-garde-luv-guru ramblings are quite often offensive and tasteless. But hey, that is what people come here for. As Shakespeare said: “…you can get shat on from up high…”
By Pablo Picasso July 12, 2010 at 8:38 pm
“Good taste” is the enemy of creativity.
By CNSYD July 13, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Allen, obviously you are a trial lawyer or what is referred to as “the dark side”. Who is Glen Beck and what does he have to do with the price of eggs in China? Please tell me why the trial lawyers fight tooth and nail against tort reform in SC? I have been present in the mediation sessions where the plaintiff’s attorney virtually says, why does it matter, it is insurance money. Yes there is discovery, expert testimony, exhibits, etc. All this makes a jury’s eyes glaze over. Each side has their expert who swears the other side’s expert has no clue. The jury has no idea who is right and who is wrong they just want this to be over. The plaintiff’s attorney can drag this out seemingly forever. That is OK with the defendant’s attorney as they are on the clock also. So the person who ultimately has to pay the bill if the plaintiff wins before a jury has to stop the bleeding. That is why most civil cases never make it to the jury. Trial lawyers know how the game is played. Many times I have heard a mediator ask “how much will it take to settle this?” Translated that means how much will it take for the plaintiff to go away and the defendant not admit any fault. Allen it is YOU who is full of shit. Don’t forget 97% of attorneys give the other 3% a bad name.
By Allen July 13, 2010 at 2:06 pm
CNSYD,
“Allen, obviously you are a trial lawyer or what is referred to as the dark side’.
UNTRUE
“I have been present in the mediation sessions where the plaintiff’s attorney virtually says, why does it matter, it is insurance money.”
UNDOCUMENTED ASSERTION WITHOUT SOURCE
“Yes there is discovery, expert testimony, exhibits, etc. All this makes a jury’s eyes glaze over.”
GROSS GENERALITY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE OR FACT
“The jury has no idea who is right and who is wrong they just want this to be over.”
GROSS GENERALITY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE OR FACT
“The plaintiff’s attorney can drag this out seemingly forever. That is OK with the defendant’s attorney as they are on the clock also. So the person who ultimately has to pay the bill if the plaintiff wins before a jury has to stop the bleeding.”
GROSS GENERALITY WITHOUT SUBSTANCE OR FACT
“Many times I have heard a mediator ask ‘how much will it take to settle this?’ Translated that means how much will it take for the plaintiff to go away and the defendant not admit any fault.
UNDOCUMENTED ASSERTION WITHOUT SOURCE
Let’s go back to your original post and its dumbest generality:
“A jury of ‘peers’ is seldom equipped to understand the issues and the plaintiff’s attorney will play the poor little person being done in by this wealthy entity card.”
And why would that be? Is it because you want the world to believe that the average jury is as ill-equipped as you are at reasoning?
That simply isn’t true.
Instead of lamely attempting to universalize your unsubstantiated and uninformed conceits, why don’t you get up off your ass one of these days and go watch a civil case being litigated? Richland County’s courtroom is open to the public.
It’s maximum transparency — pure democracy in action.
Afterwards, interview a few of the jurors — they like to talk about their experience — and see if they’re as clueless and ignorant as you give them credit for being.
A few will be professionals (teachers, engineers, administrators, medical personnel, college professors, etc.) and some will be blue collar workers, like bus drivers, welders, cooks and plant foremen. You’ll have a little of everybody there — all of them fellow citizens of yours.
Understand, though, that the dispute in question had to overcome several hurdles to get there. Evidence had to be gathered, depositions taken, motions argued, and a judge had to be persuaded that the case should be heard by a jury rather than being thrown out.
Say, YOU can even talk to the judge if you want. He’s a public servant and works for you.
So when you’ve done that — a real informed thing to do — you’ll be able to spout something other than general obtuseness.
By Tom July 13, 2010 at 3:50 pm
CYNSD says: A jury of “peers” is seldom equipped to understand the issues . . .
Gee, what an elitist attitude.
Especially coming from someone with such a proven lack of substance.
By SnakeMD July 13, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Hey, I just spent 90 days on more than several Federal juries. (Florence, SC) I was the foreman on one. I was disappointed with some of my fellow jurors. Yes, we had people from all walks of life and we also had a couple of racists, a few rednecks who “didn’t like city-slicker lawyers,” and a couple of folks who were several ring tones short of a call plan. I think we need to bring back the old English Star Chamber, so we can just be tried by three professional jurors who are well versed on the law and human behavior. I am not entirely sure I found the right people guilty or not. Oh well, life occasionally deals you a bad hand and you have to pack it in with pair of 3′s sometimes.
By CNSYD July 13, 2010 at 5:54 pm
Allen, how full of prunes you are. Perhaps reading comprehension is not your long suit. When I say “I” heard that lierally means that. I was present and witnessed it first hand. Why was I there? I was hired by the defendant’s attorney and paid by the defendant’s insurance company thru that attorney to provide expert assistance. I would have been to the scene and looked at the actual evidence including all the discovery files. So how is that “without substance or fact”? How do I know juries do not understand testimony by either side in regard to topics such as lateral forces? Because they don’t have not been trained in their regular life to know. That is why the plaintiff’s attorney strikes any potential juror who may be technically educated and goes for the young high school educated housewife with children. How do I know that juries just want this trial to be over? Because before I got into forensics I had served on juries where the discussion in the jury room is about how can we get this over with as quick as possible so I can get out of here. They also state that they have no clue what the technical details being discussed mean. As I said, and you ignored, I have been in the room while the attorneys and the mediator discuss not who is “right” or “wrong” but how much money will it take to settle it. That is what you may know as first hand knowledge. Why would I go to Richland County? Thank God I do not live near there. I have been involved in the defense of civil cases in the coastal counties. I guess Richland county is just different, right? Fess up, you are a dark side trial lawyer aren’t you and you don’t want anyone interferring with your legal extortion, right?
By CNSYD July 13, 2010 at 6:00 pm
Tom, where did you gain your ELITIST knowledge of me? So let me understand you. If the case involves the structural integrity of a building design to withstand hurricane force winds and whether the designer took all the relevant factors into account, the average “man on the street” would feel comfortable understanding that, right? Does that mean the average “man on the street” is dumb? No. He hasn’t been educated to know and I would not expect him to understand. So is that enough substance for you?
By Tom July 14, 2010 at 12:44 pm
CNSYD,
I’ll have to admit you’ve got at least a half-wit’s ability to pull unverifiable anecdotes out of your ass, but none of that will work on anybody full-witted.
Who can argue with delightful generalities like this:
“How do I know juries do not understand testimony by either side in regard to topics such as lateral forces? Because they don’t have not been trained (sic) in their regular life to know. That is why the plaintiff’s attorney strikes any potential juror who may be technically educated and goes for the young high school educated housewife with children.”
Admit it:
You’re afraid that a jury WILL understand what the facts in a case are . . . that they’re not all as clueless or ignorant as you want them to be.
A jury possessed of the facts could just as easily find in favor of the defendant, if they’re as ill-informed as you want everybody to believe they are — and they aren’t.
You have offered up nothing here but hearsay and unsubstantiated statements, in which nobody can learn anything about the dispute in question. Yes, that is safe for the purposes of your rhetoric, but it does nothing to support your non-argument.
You want to universalize your conceits against a fair — but not flawless — system by smearing any potential juror as somehow being as incapable as you are of reasoning. Like the other guy said, it’s a baffling elitist affront to the rest of us.
No, I am not a trial lawyer, but what you wish to slime as the “dark side” happened to be the employment of several of this country’s Founding Fathers including John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. The man many Americans cite as the nation’s greatest president — Abraham Lincoln — was a circuit-riding, Illinois trial lawyer.
Recently I read a book concerning Lincoln’s legal career. The author described one case which involved a huge and complicated piece of farm machinery. Lincoln had the implement carried by several men into the court room, and at one point during his introduction of the device, he got down on the floor of the court, on his stomach, as he explained its workings to the jury. Before his presentation was finished, the jurors –assorted shopkeepers and farmers — had vacated the jury box and were on the floor peering into the new-fangled machine with Lincoln as he described its various functions.
Your disparagement of our system and its people is distinctly un-American. It’s a cynical view that claims all lawyers suck — that is, until YOU need one. You will bellow to anyone dumb enough to listen that the system is irredeemably crooked . . . until some drunk commits a gross recklessness against you or yours. And that attitude is the true “dark side.”
By Allen July 14, 2010 at 1:49 pm
How do I know juries do not understand testimony by either side in regard to topics such as lateral forces? Because they don’t have not been trained in their regular life to know.
How the hell do you know what people can understand and what they don’t?
Do you give ‘em IQ tests?
It’s also convenient that you just happened to serve on juries where everything appears to back your claims. You don’t provide any details, so as far as anyone knows, you are pulling it out of your ass here.
Don’t get me wrong. I don’t blame you for making anything up — because you don’t seem to have any verifiable facts.
All you present is some innate ability to know the comprehension levels of everybody who gets called to jury duty.
And, no, I’m not a trial lawyer, but I do have a law degree. So if that turns out to be a crime in any discussion, it’s my fault.
By Gin 'n Tonic July 14, 2010 at 5:18 pm
The funniest part of this recent exchange is that CNSYD doesn’t mention these “juries” he allegedly served on until much later in the argument, instead of citing them at the outset where they could have done the most good.
First, he tells “politicalobserver” how uninformed juries are, and that’s how lawyers make their money. Later, he was involved in some ill-defined mediation session to explain that juries seldom understand anything. Then, a post after that, he suddenly has a miraculous history himself as a juror who overhears fellow jurors:
“I had served on juries where the discussion in the jury room is about how can we get this over with as quick as possible so I can get out of here.”
If I were a betting man — and I am — I’d bet that CNSYD pulled these juries out of his ass.
And, for the record, I AM a trial lawyer . . . a full-blooded, limousine liberal with the scalps hanging off the bumpers to prove it.
Cheers.
By SnakeMD July 15, 2010 at 7:12 pm
Gin ‘n Tonic I believe you are what you say you are and that you knock ‘em back at the end of the day to keep that gin blossom on the tip of your nose slightly pink. (yes, it does help keep your blood pressure down) Please, leave me out of the CNSYD discussion because I don’t care. However, on the 6 or so juries that I have served on over the last 15 years (1 Federal) I , too had similar negative experiences. One rural lady (redneck) told me that she didn’t care what that “city-slicker” lawyer said or showed her she wasn’t buying. We couldn’t get her to budge from her locked opinion. On another case I had a guy who was so obnoxious in informing us what the the law really meant that we had to call for the judge to come back in to reexplain an issue to us. Take it for what it is worth.
It is shame that 98% of the crooked lawyers give the other 2% a bad name.
By Gin 'n Tonic July 16, 2010 at 12:55 am
SnakeMD,
Allen and Tom run a legal research firm.
I occasionally use one of their office computers and drink their gin.
Our justice system, like our political system, isn’t flawless by any means. What is?
Sometimes juries get it wrong; mostly, they get it about right. In any case, a judge reviews their findings to see if they comport with what is reasonable. He or she has the power to reduce a monetary award and can add to it, if that is deemed necessary.
As you probably know, each side gets the same number of peremptory juror strikes (4), and the trial commences with the twelve who are left from the original pool of 20. It’s always a crapshoot.
So, contrary to CNSYD’s absurd claim, (“That is why the plaintiff’s attorney strikes any potential juror who may be technically educated and goes for the young high school educated housewife with children.) packing a jury with a homogenous type is impossible — nor would it be desirable.
I don’t know what he means by striking everyone who is “technically educated.”
In my experience, for example, nurses make wonderful jurors in injury cases. They are technically educated to a high degree, are highly practical (and wear practical shoes to work) and they often care deeply about the fates of people they don’t even know.
Of course, very few jurors can possess the technical background of the parties or the experts who testify; however, they do understand things like evidence tampering, document destruction, attempted cover-ups, outright lying, and other malfeasance which tend to point toward a defendant’s liability.
I regret that your experiences as a juror have been less than satisfactory, and I have just realized you told me to leave you out of this discussion.
Oops.
By SnakeMD July 16, 2010 at 6:13 pm
Gin ‘n Tonic:
No, I said leave me out the argument between you two–not out of the discussion. I appreciate your response to me. Thanks.
Cheers…
By CNSYD July 17, 2010 at 12:56 pm
Well, well, well.I return from tending to an elderly parent to find I have hit the “legal eagles” right where they live. Mediations I have been directly involved in concerned alleged construction deficiencies. Since I was in the rooms and you weren’t, that is how I KNOW that the ONLY discussion between the opposing lawyers and the mediator was over how much money was it going to take to settle. The insurance rep sat behind the defense attorney to whisper in his ear when the “limit” had been passed. IRT juries I have been on and not been on. I have been called many times over the last 40 years to sit for civil cases. I have had the experience of being asked my profession and being struck by the plaintiff. Times when strikes were exhausted, I have served and even been foreman. So when I tell you the mindset of civil jurors I do so from personal experience. I do not believe you legal experts have been in the jury room, have you? How do I know the demographics that lawyers desire in their juries? Because when I have been working for defendant’s lawyers I have heard what they want in theirs and they told me what “dark side” lawyers want and how they try to limit those. I see it really wounded you that I used the term “dark side”. Guess where I learned that? From lawyers whose principal practice is defending companies, etc. from all the BS suits you guys bring. Now, if the US legal system is so great, why the hell is the SC General Assembly dealing with tort reform and why are trial lawyers dead set against it? Statue of repose and “joint and several” are means to line the pockets of trial lawyers.