From my position as a guardhouse lawyer on the couch this is the purest form of socialist sedition BS by a member of the judical process I think I have ever observed ........
If this kangaroo court is allowed to stand then it is proof that this country and it's citizens safety from such radical loose cannon stasi forms of government is done for............
What a friggin crock of crap ..................Stay Safe !
The judge was exercising his prerogative under admiralty law. The question should be, why is this case being prosectuted in an admiralty court instead of a common court?
IANAL, but in today's Star Chambers, it seems the Judge gets to control what "law" gets mentioned to the jury as "pertinent." That's why it became "illegal" long ago to inform the jury of their right to ignore the instructions of the judge and nullify. The Constitutions of the State and the USA are "law" and therefore would fall under the rubric of what can or can't be mentioned.
You rarely hear judges say it as baldly as this one does, but this is pretty much the law everywhere (and has been since a US Supreme Court decision in around 1890). Constitutional questions are issues of law, for the judge to decide; if the judge decides the law is unconstitutional, he will throw it out, but if he decides it's not, you can't argue your constitutional claims in front of the jury.