Yeah, me neither.  Good thing we have the California supreme court to clear that up for us.

Yesterday, America moved one baby step closer to apartheid, a society in which racial groups are officially considered unequal and consigned to their own separate spheres under the law. California’s supreme court granted a temporary stay in a murder trial about to begin, on the unprecedented ground that the county where the crime took place and the trial was to be held does not have enough residents of the same color as the defendant, who is black. In other words, the underlying theory is that a defendant may be entitled to a jury of his or her own race, at least in some as yet undetermined minimal percentage. No showing is exclusion of jurors on the ground of race need be shown if a change of venue is granted. Mere demography could become a criterion in presumed prejudice.

Since we are guaranteed a jury of our peers, if the stay is upheld and a change of venue required by the California supremes, the justices would in effect be ruling that being of a different race can make one not a peer and unable to judge fairly in the eyes of the law. From this sort of ruling one can logically derive many corollaries establishing in law the principle that we are not in fact all equal irrespective of race.

Well why not.  With so-called “hate” crime legislation we’ve already created a legal precedent whereby crimes against certain protected victim group demographics (blacks, gays, etc.) are more serious than crimes against non-victim/protected demographics, so let’s go ahead and say that these protected demographics also have a right to a trial by jury not just of their peers but of their peers who just happen to be the same color or sexuality or whatever as they are.

I mean, that’s what the founders must have intended with the 6th amendment even if that’s not actually what they wrote.