Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 10:38:22 0600
From: Frank Grose
To: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Web Link
Thanks for that kind of information. I take what you are giving me as unspun fact. In the case of Chamber, in light of the "rest of the story" (as Paul Harvey would say), I agree with the court action. Surprised?
Not being able to find the first two cases may only mean that they're not reported, as I said. But given Barton's tendency toward contextual literary license with the facts, holdings and rationales of other cases we *can* find and verify, the whole of his work becomes inherently suspect. It's the boy who cried wolf. I'll admit he is a captivating speaker. But those are the ones you got to watch closely.
People are people and they (we) all probably try to put out information in the best light we can that favors our particular agenda. It just means we have to be cautious in what we believe when said of others. I shall read and listen to Barton with yet another grain of salt. Hype from the left or the right is of little value, beyond stirring up emotions.
Regarding your comments on being referred to as "God's chosen" were helpful. I can understand that boasting of such could well lead to negative reaction by others. So could referring to Jews in a derogatory way using that phrase. I shall be more careful in my use of the term. However, if I need to use it with you in the future, it will be in context of the Scripture, and certainly will have no negativity attached to it. I regard it as biblical fact, and not that you, individually, have any special talents or abilities that result from that. I just take God's covenant with Abraham that "through you all the nations of the world will be blessed" at face value. History confirms that this promise was true.
Frank
Date: Wed Nov 19 14:20:21 1997
To: Frank Grose
From: Rob Weinberg
Subject: Re: Web Link
At 10:38 AM 11/19/97 0600, you wrote:
In the case of Chamber, in light of the "rest of the story" (as Paul Harvey would say), I agree with the court action. Surprised?
Yup, I am surprised. And pleased. Although at least one lawyer in my office thinks the result is nutz. It's not a first amendment issue at all really, but as the court described could lead to jury passion and prejudice if they think there's a moral imperative to impose the death penalty as opposed to weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors according to the statute. I also tend to think it may be a little extreme (surprised?) because Hey! it's just closing argument and a curative instruction to the jury from the judge should've done it, in theory anyway. But when you're dealing with the death penalty, courts bend over backwards to be safe. It's important to recognize, FWIW, that the court only established that per se rule in death penalty cases. Prosecutors in those kinds of cases have all kinds of technical rules that can trip them up.
I regard it as biblical fact, and not that you, individually, have any special talents or abilities that result from that. I just take God's covenant with Abraham that "through you all the nations of the world will be blessed" at face value. History confirms that this promise was true.
Well, I'm not so sure I'd agree with that last assessment. But, who am I to argue? Or complain?
All Rights Reserved
0 comments:
Post a Comment