Yes. If I dont' agree with the law, I can't be impartial, can I?
In your mind you can only be impartial when you agree with the law. That is not impartial either. At least you made it abundantly clear that you stand with the STATE and stand against the people.
And you'd lie to do it, wouldn't you?
I doubt it. Not that this will matter to a statist like you but nonetheless, when a court process works towards seating a biased jury the court process has initiated force, so to speak. Thus, should a potential juror chose to lie about agreement with the law it is an act of defense on behalf of the defendant.
You don't "choose" to get on a jury;you're chosen. And if you lie to get on a jury, you have an agenda, and you're not impartial.
If it's an agenda the agenda is to ensure that the defendant in fact does get an impartial jury. No doubt you hate that.
You are right about one thing. When it comes to honest/equal justice, I am impartial. So much so that you could be a murderer and have killed my best friend and gotten off Scott-free. As much as I would detest that, as a juror, when you're on trial for another murder and the facts prove your innocence I would vote to acquit.
The fact that the current justice process would never allow me to be a juror in that hypothetical scenario is besides the point of my commitment to honest/equal justice. For if a person is to be found guilty it should only be for a initiatory-of-force crime -- as opposed to breaking a political agenda law -- and then only for the actual initiatory-of-force crime the defendant is charged with.
I can only be impartial as to whether or not a person is guilty or not guilty of violating a law, according to the facts, if I am not also judging the law at the same time. Judging the law is entirely separate from judging the facts.
At least you made it abundantly clear that you stand with the STATE and stand against the people.
Where did I say that? Your anarchist bent causes you to ASSUME that, but, as I said before, if I disagree with a law (and thus stand against the state), I will make that abundantly clear up front. It is not for me to take that prejudice into the jury box with me.
Not that this will matter to a statist like you but nonetheless, when a court process works towards seating a biased jury the court process has initiated force, so to speak. Thus, should a potential juror chose to lie about agreement with the law it is an act of defense on behalf of the defendant.
This is the most convoluted bunch of nonsense I've read all day. Lying as self-defense, in a courtroom? HAH!
If it's an agenda the agenda is to ensure that the defendant in fact does get an impartial jury.
You're not impartial if you think the law is unconstitutional.
I've enjoyed this dialogue with you, but we're just going over the same ground. We're not going to agree, but good luck at getting on a jury. I do everything I can to avoid jury service.