The blurb on the quote section of the TDCAA website led me to google the quote, which in turn revealed quite a hotbed of controversy over the Honorable Justice's comments at a seminar.<BR><BR>Here's a report, more or less, of the context of the statement.<BR><BR>Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' " - got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking.<BR><BR>The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.<BR><BR>"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.<BR><BR>"So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes." <BR><BR>Regardless of the furor by the left as to why Scalia would reference a fictional character, I'm glad he did. As one commentor correctly noted: "Scalia's point is that strict legal rules don't necessarily apply in certain situations and will not be enforced because of the jury system."<BR><BR>I believe this is what some people call jury nullification. I think I heard about it at a defense law seminar.<BR><BR>Your opinion please...Too bad more justices don't watch TVC'mon it's just an analogy, get a lifeIs he serious?Would he accept reassignment to Waco?

The forum members here reaffirm my belief that lawyers can have common sense.