I'm glad I wasn't called...

Of course, I couldn't have been since I don't live in DC (just near it). But if I had been called for jury duty in Scooter Libby's trial these questions would have meant some serious soul searching.

"Do any of you have feelings or opinions about the Bush administration or any of its policies or actions, whether positive or negative, that might affect your ability to give a former member of the Bush administration a fair trial?" U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton asked a panel of about 60 potential jurors.

Okay, I think I can answer that one "no". I mean, I definitely have feelings and opinions about this administration and its policies or actions, but I feel confident I could give a former member of it a fair trial. But this next question?

"Do any of you have any feelings or opinions about Vice President Cheney, whether positive or negative, that might affect your ability to be fair in this case or that might affect your ability to fairly judge Vice President Cheney's believability?"

I would hope my feeling and opinions about Cheney wouldn't affect my ability to fairly judge his believability. But you know what? Things like this week's interview with Chris Matthews on Fox don't help:

WALLACE: "By taking the policy you have, haven't you, Mr. Vice President, ignored the expressed will of the American people in the November election?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, Chris, this President, and I don't think any President worth his salt can afford to make decisions of this magnitude according to the polls. The polls change.

WALLACE This was an election, sir.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Polls change day by day, week by week. I think the vast majority of Americans want the right outcome in Iraq.

Twice, in a row and explicitly, Cheney said the November mid-term elections were nothing more than "polls", and could - should - be disregarded. So, yeah: I have feelings and opinions about Cheney. And one of those opinions is that he's a lying sociopath - I really do think that.

But I'm not sure how I would answer that question. Does that make me incapable of "fairly judg[ing]" him? Does my experience of him mean my opinion is unfair? Is it true that we want jurors to be so open-minded that whatever they bring to the trial is totally irrelevant?

The beginning of the jury system wanted "peers" because they wanted people who knew the defendant, knew the situation, knew what was going on, and could judge fairly based on that knowledge. Now, we try to get jurors who know as little as possible. In large part, that's because we don't want people whose minds have been made up by media coverage and rumors before they hear actual evidence. But to what extent is 6 years' experience going to "affect your ability to be fair" in a case concerning something this hugely pervasive?

Like I said, I'm glad I wasn't called.