Never mind me Robert, I know you are mad at me for believing that the jury should judge the facts and the law and not be led around like sheep by some lefty black-robed lawyer.

BTW...are you calling Jonathan Turley a dummy?

RayR wrote:

No. Probably have never done that here. Not my MO. But, I understand why you would ask such a question- because that is your MO and you believe- everyone does as you do.

Ironic that you are such a fan of The Founding Fathers ideas about the legal system, but you reject their idea when it suits you.

I cannot believe that you think the jury should rule on the law if you expect law to be predictable, used properly, and applied in a consistent manner. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment to dictate every aspect of how state trials should be conducted. Oh, wait, your a libertarian! That won't fly.

Would you want 6 or 12 citizens picked from the voter roles to decide the standards by which a determination whether you need surgery? Of course not. You'd want a surgeon for that. In short, a trained, experienced professional. So, why don't you think people deserve the same in the legal system? Maybe you would like a single King ruling on matters...

rfenst wrote:

I think what we’ve learned is, the party of lynching has really missed their glorious publicity hooded days and needed an outlet. Don’t see how anyone can willingly be associated with democrats.

ZRX1200 wrote:

No. Probably have never done that here. Not my MO. But, I understand why you would ask such a question- because that is your MO and you believe- everyone does as you do.

Ironic that you are such a fan of The Founding Fathers ideas about the legal system, but you reject their idea when it suits you.

I cannot believe that you think the jury should rule on the law if you expect law to be predictable, used properly, and applied in a consistent manner. Maybe we need a Constitutional Amendment to dictate every aspect of how state trials should be conducted. Oh, wait, your a libertarian! That won't fly.

Would you want 6 or 12 citizens picked from the voter roles to decide the standards by which a determination whether you need surgery? Of course not. You'd want a surgeon for that. In short, a trained, experienced professional. So, why don't you think people deserve the same in the legal system? Maybe you would like a single King ruling on matters...

rfenst wrote:

So the jury is like a bunch of rubes that can't think for themselves and a biased elitist lefty judge is like a trained, experienced professional that needs to steer the rubes on what to think so they reach what conclusion the judge wants? That sounds like a King ruling on matters.

No Robert, the law is anything but predictable as told by Eric in #35.

Regarding your other remarks, you sound more like you are building a strawman and gaslighting me.

RayR wrote: