[OldDeckHand]

"The jury sits in judgment of the law,"

Absolutely incorrect. The jury sits in judgment of the accused - more precisely, in judgment of the state's case against the accused - and are instructed, without equivocation, to follow the law, not to evaluate its merit.

If you're arguing for jury nullification, you're no different than the idiotic racists who acquitted OJ Simpson.

[LearsFool]

...and are instructed, without equivocation, to follow the law, not to evaluate its merit.

Instruction and right are two different things. I hold tightly to the right of self-government, and to the fact that, in the final analysis, all government devolves to the people.

Americans have (like every nation has) gotten the government we deserve. But there are still those among us who will exercise our right of self-government and overrule unjust, murderous laws on a case-by-case basis.

You see, we're opposed to abortion even when it comes to actually stopping abortion.

[I Buried My Guns]

"...If you're arguing for jury nullification, you're no different than the idiotic racists who acquitted OJ Simpson...."

Actually, Lear is completely different, in that the OJ trial was nullified by ignorant racists who supported their co-ethnic irrespective of compelling facts, whereas this nullification would be motivated by deeply held, Biblical-based values that have been in effect for over a thousand years.

So yeah, I think it's a tad different.

[LussaO]

Exactly right - if these freepers are saying “in this case, murder is okay with me,” they are justifying murder with the best of them - all the moral relativists (Hitler, Stalin,
Mao, Pol Pot) who had no problem with it either.

[editor-surveyor]

.
"If you're arguing for jury nullification, you're no different than the idiotic racists who acquitted OJ Simpson."

Statist strawman!

Roeder saved lives, Simpson took lives out of personal pride.

Jury nullification is valid.
.