Not curiously, intentionally.
And you have demonstrated, in your repost of your remarks, why I avoided it.
It's bait, for an argument.
No sale.
sinkspur wrote in post #68: Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts. Zon replied: sinkspur curiously avoided this part of the post #63 he/she(?) responded to: "Up until 1893, judges routinely instructed jurors that they are to judge both the facts of the case and the law as it may or may not apply to the case. Jury nullification. Obviously you side with the parasitical elite government officials, mainstream media and many tenured professors and not with the people whom are the ultimate guardian of their laws." Emphasis added.
sinkspur curiously avoided this part of the post #63 he/she(?) responded to:
Not curiously, intentionally.
So you'll obfuscate to the point of doing all but outright satating that you are steadfast against jury nullification.
And you have demonstrated, in your repost of your remarks, why I avoided it.
So you chose to make a point via obfuscation. Pip.
It's bait, for an argument.
No sale.
There is no argument. For you have made it clear that you are steadfast against jury nullification. Or do you wish to contend that you are not, despite what you wrote? To refresh your memory you wrote:
sinkspur wrote in post #68: Exactly. I don't want some hayseed from Penelope, Texas who can barely read to decide on the Constitutionality of Laws. That's the jurisdiction of courts.