The reason that I mentioned jury nullification is to point out that all of our options have not yet been exercised.
An example would be the refusal of a fully informed jury to convict a person of illegal firearm possession even though the letter of the law had been violated. If the possession had nothing to do with the commission or intent of a crime, is it conscionable to convict?
As far as fewer jury trials, I believe it could work either way. Some may think that they have a better chance with a jury unbound by statute law. I believe though (as I think our founders did) that the majority of jurors would be aware that they have to live in the same society as the person on trial once released.
In Atlas Shrugged, so far, there does not seem to be any checks to the powers that be. Hank Rearden only grudgingly had a lobbyist in Washington and even then he didn't keep informed about the direction of government. This seems to be a character flaw in that he is too focused on the production of his metal and not fully aware of the impact of the social changes that are occurring. Rearden certainly has the financial ability to fight but chooses not to.
Point well made and taken.however that option has been exercised periodically and often not for the reasons you or I would suggest it should have been. (Can you say O.J. Simpson?)
In this coming Saturday's chapter, we're going to run into one particular check. And we're going to just barely touch on another, from which a later chapter is named.