[betty boop]

I see a judges oath of office as a positive DUTY to inform an impartial jury as to the Constitutional facts of the issues at hand.

I agree, tpaine -- and among the constitutional facts is this fact: The Constitution nowhere requires juries to be mere "rubber stamps" of the judicial authority. Juries are expected to be, not only impartial, but independent: They are completely free to make up their own mind according to their own best lights. And this applies to the law, not merely to the facts of the case.

Happy Fourth of July, tpaine!

[tpaine]

I see a judges oath of office as a positive DUTY to inform an impartial jury as to the Constitutional facts of the issues at hand.

I agree, tpaine -- and among the constitutional facts is this fact:
The Constitution nowhere requires juries to be mere "rubber stamps" of the judicial authority. Juries are expected to be, not only impartial, but independent: They are completely free to make up their own mind according to their own best lights. And this applies to the law, not merely to the facts of the case.

Good to see we can agree again Betty. Now if I could just convince you to withdraw your support of the 'myrmidons' of the American political class, as our author points out:

"-- It's probably fair to say that jury nullification is about as popular with the American political class, including its myrmidons in the media and academe, as the Second Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.
Yet the former may well find a way to be helpful to the latter in the courts of law.
There is no law that says "elite opinion" must inevitably get the last word on such questions. -- "

And a Happy Fourth to you Betty.