Can't argue with nonsense like that.
Nonsense? It's not nonsense at all.
We regularly berate judges on FR for judicial activism -- ignoring the written law in favor of their personal views of "justice". How is this any different, except that his and the jury's view of "justice" happens to coincide with yours?
Judicial activism and jury activism are precisely the same. They are both hostile to the rule of law and should be loathesome to anyone who claims to be a conservative.
Both strip the authority of government from the duly elected representatives of the people and vest it in one or twelve (usually) unelected, unaccountable individuals. It is a monumentally absurd and dangerous assumption that such individuals will have a better grasp on "common law" or "justice" than those who were elected to create law in the first place.
Don't recent elections give us a powerful clue to both the morality and wisdom of our current public? If you don't think they make very good choices in the voting booth, why do you believe they would become magically wise and fair in the jury box?
I strongly prefer judges and juries who recognize the rule of law and have the humility to let the people, via their elected representatives, do the enacting, amending and repealing of it.