[SalukiLawyer]

And we ask 12 people, in both cases, WHO HAVE NO SPECIAL TRAINING IN THE LAW, to decide justice.

You do understand that jurors are not required to (or allowed to) interpret law, but only to decide which facts should carry the day. Everything they need to know about the law is provided to them in the jury instructions, which they are bound to follow. Legal rulings are made by the judge (who is a lawyer, by the way) based on the authority and arguments presented to him by the parties in an adversary system. Since you do understand this, how do you feel the jury example strengthens your argument?

[Taliesan]

You seem to think I'm arguing there is no need for judges or lawyers.

I'm arguing that judges don't need to be brilliant as the Beltway defines it. And that the entire conservative movement was implicitly making that argument before, oh, just the other day.

Somebody made the point that it is easy to think the law is not complex until you go to court. I guess it has gone out of fashion for lawyers to argue to juries that the case before them is simple and clear. In every lawsuit, at least one highly trained legal mind disagrees with the poster's argument.

You're an attorney? Knowing the American courtroom as you certainly must, maybe you could elucidate how the jury system strengthens YOUR apparent argument that we are all lost unless brilliant minds protect the law from the rest of us.

You may be a credit to your discipline, but your profession as a whole does not have the credibility to make that argument.