Implied was the inherent corruption of concentrated wealth.

The judge is tired of people filling out outlandish questionaires just to get out of jury duty...but he's way outta line imo.  Power trippin' big time.

If and when I'm accused I don't want a juror who can't wait to convict and go home...I don't think its fair to any potential defendants if she is chosen for a jury when she is an obvious malcontent.  Just get her outta there.

I certainly don't agree with giving someone useless unending jury duty - I don't really see what it accomplishes, how he has the authority to do that, the bad precedent it sends, and where this ends.  Abuse of power indeed.

All that being said, "unpopular opinion" seems a bit light.  Her answer was clearly racist.

A friend from that area related an amusing incident which happened while walking the dog.  On the dog-walking route there's a corner store that makes a habit of putting out food for the local pigeons.  They come and peck away and have for years.  Out in front of the store is a bus stop.

One spring morning about 7, the friend is walking the dog.  As they approach the corner, there is a line of people waiting for the bus, drinking their coffee, reading their newspapers, doing all the stuff NYC area commuters do.  As my friend and the dog are crossing the street, a peregrine falcon swoops down out of nowhere and just nails a pigeon that had shown up for the free feed.  Feathers everywhere.  The falcon and pigeon go to the sidewalk in a heap, where the falcon finishes killing the pigeon with beak and talon, glares at everyone and then lumbers aloft carrying its kill, secure in the knowledge that he's both the baddest mofo in town and has a full nutritious breakfast coming.  In typical Noo Yawker fashion, the comuters don't even take their heads out of their papers to watch, and only my friend and the dog see this True Life Adventure play out on a city street.

It would also be instructive to see what kinds of responses would be given to some very specific questions, such as:

"If agreeing to a compromise would result in your Social Security benefits being reduced, would you still want your representative to compromise his or her position that benefits should not be reduced?"  

or

"If agreeing to a compromise meant that Medicare would end and seniors would have to get their insurance on the open market, or via an exchange, would you still want your representative to compromise from his or her position that Medicare should not be ended?"  

or

"If agreeing to a compromise meant that wealthy individuals and corporations would receive additional reductions in their tax rates, would you still want your representative to compromise from his or her opposition to that result?"

I used to be on the Zogby poll list, and so often, when asked at the end for comments, I had the same comment about several questions.  & the comment was always that the way in which a particular question was phrased did not allow respondents to give various answers.  Or, the way in which the question is phrased, makes assumptions that will push answers in a particular direction.

At the end of WW2 "unconditional" surrender was the correct position; in almost all other negotiation settings: no compromise=no progress. "Stand strong, line-in-the-sand," makes for good campaigning. Governing is reserved for grown ups.

MEREDITH VIEIRA:
You have people now out there searching-- I mean, in Hawaii?