Jurors would judge the law, not just the facts because they were informed by the judge to judge both the facts and the law in that case.
Non sequitur.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of non sequitur. What I wrote does follow logically. A non sequitur is a statement that doesn't follow logically.
What does that have to do with impartiality?
I already told you in the post you responded to. See for yourself and especially the part in bold...
Are you seriously contending that you're that ignorant or incompetent or both? The answer is glaringly obvious. Answer: Jurors would judge the law, not just the facts because they were informed by the judge to judge both the facts and the law in that case. In other words, a juror could think that the defendant is guilty of breaking a law but that the law is bogus in this case and should not be upheld. A juror becomes more impartial when he or she is informed that their job also entails judging the law in that case. Cut of judging the facts or cut of judging the law and impartiality is lost.
Do you understand? Or should I hazard a well reasoned guess based on reading so many of your posts on various threads that you will continue to feign ignorance and/or incompetence.
Begging the question.