"Your belligerence on this proves that you have no business ever serving on a jury, since you simply won't follow simple directions."
I served on juries in the past and I was passive in the deliberations. I observed how other people came to conclusions, and it wasn't based on what the judge said. That isn't reality. However, I don't ever get seated on a jury anymore, because I tell the judge and trial attorneys up front that I am a licensed private investigator. Neither side want someone that can think independently.
I don't mean to appear "belligerent" per se. I just think the Supreme Court of Colorado made a stupid decision. I don't the Bible or discussions of it should be excluded from juries because it is folly. It may not be on lips, but it will be on minds. Also, I still maintain it is institutionalized anti-Bible bias.
I would like to know if a judge would have tossed out a case over this back in the 19th Century?
In the 19th Century, a murder case was tossed out because the judge (Bean, naturally) "cound'nt find no law against killin' a Chinaman." Is that the sort of amateur so-called jurisprudence we wish to have?