🚀 go-pugleaf

In <4748a8$hng_007@news.intsyson.com>, rcb@intsyson.com (Rich Bland) writes:
>In article <471v6n$376@spectator.cris.com>, malloy@cris.com (Sean Malloy) wrote:
>>shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell Esq.) wrote:
>>>*I never disagreed with the two statements of objective fact you made
>>>*-- that OJ was found not guilty, and that Ron and Nicole are now dead.
>>>*However, your statement that neither of these could in any way be
>>>*altered was false-to-fact; while there is no way to change Ron and
>>>*Nicole's "metabolically challenged" state, a procedure -- albeit
>>>*unlikely -- exists whereby the country's laws could be changed to
>>>*permit retrying Simpson, which could achieve a different verdict. It
>>>Well, actually, no.  You see, our Consitution has that pesky little
>>>"no ex post facto laws" clause.

OK, muchly tired as I am getting of these "re's", I gotta throw $0.02 in.
Actually, laws no, _interpretations_ yes. Look at the miranda ruling for example.
Should the supreme court decide , say, that any allegation of racism was unconstitutional,
it is possible (if unlikely) that the case could be brought back up.

>SNIP

And no, it wouldn't change history. But, it COULD change the future. And that
is the only thing worth trying to change anyway.

I should mention that I don't give a hoot one way or the other about the
"OJ Simpson Media Circus" or trial, or whatever you want to call it.
I wasn't in the courtroom listening to the testimony. Nor was I at the crime 
itself. Therefore, I don't have any opinion either way. (End Soapbox)