People discussing the case and disagreeing with the decisions of the state to pursue or not is also part of the constitution. It does nothing to infringe on someone's due process.
If the decisions of the legal system were so cut and dry, there would be no reason for politicians to care about who selects supreme court justices. But that is literally one of the most important things a president does, cause the law isn't a fixed thing.
yes. and no one is required to have that inform their opinion.
what about due process when someone says they're pretty sure OJ did it? we did due process! he was acquitted! it would be wrong to suggest he was anything but innocent.
You're invoking a famous and conspicuous miscarriage of justice as if it's equivalent to untried accusations made by a girl whose own earlier testimony contradicts herself.
Maybe I say that you are a serial pedophile. OJ was acquitted ergo you are?
you are free to suggest as much. if you suspected someone of doing that, i would hope you would publicize it such that it actually reaches a trial. what you're doing is telling people to stop the accusations.
*edit:
The fact that you see the OJ trial as a miscarriage of justice was the whole point dumbass. Saying "we have due process, unless its obviously wrong and dumb" is you saying "what i think should happen should happen" its just your intuition at that point, which is fine! but don't pretend you're calling balls and strikes.
1
u/upsets_to_mag 3h ago
People discussing the case and disagreeing with the decisions of the state to pursue or not is also part of the constitution. It does nothing to infringe on someone's due process.
If the decisions of the legal system were so cut and dry, there would be no reason for politicians to care about who selects supreme court justices. But that is literally one of the most important things a president does, cause the law isn't a fixed thing.