CS,
This attempt at a useful discussion is winding down because I find it does not seem to have any rational continuity. Here are examples of what I mean:
1. I offer the premise that ancient Israel's legal system had means of correcting faulty judicial decisions.
2. Instead of addressing that issue, you suppose I am proposing that Israelites receiving faulty judgements should disobey the remedies handed down.
3. I state that this is off-topic, that I never addressed this issue.
4. You return to the topic and brush it aside by claiming that ancient Israelite judges were perfect - a retreat back into Disneyland.
Second example:
1. I claim that juries have the authority (under the common law) to nullify laws they believe are bad - what is called "jury nullification".
2. You deny it, claiming that I am ignorant of law. Instead of addressing that, you suppose that I am claiming that juries can change laws, as though they had the powers of the legislature.
3. I offer substantial evidence supporting jury nullification.
4. You then brush it aside, as though it is elemntary civics. If it were, then why didn't you pick up on it the first time around?
I am tired of being misrepresented and ignored. This is not a discussion; it is a dispute about a non-discussion. CS, you'll have to find someone else whom you can use to show how right you are every time on everything - even if it is off-topic.
This attempt at a useful discussion is winding down because I find it does not seem to have any rational continuity. Here are examples of what I mean:
1. I offer the premise that ancient Israel's legal system had means of correcting faulty judicial decisions.
2. Instead of addressing that issue, you suppose I am proposing that Israelites receiving faulty judgements should disobey the remedies handed down.
3. I state that this is off-topic, that I never addressed this issue.
4. You return to the topic and brush it aside by claiming that ancient Israelite judges were perfect - a retreat back into Disneyland.
Second example:
1. I claim that juries have the authority (under the common law) to nullify laws they believe are bad - what is called "jury nullification".
2. You deny it, claiming that I am ignorant of law. Instead of addressing that, you suppose that I am claiming that juries can change laws, as though they had the powers of the legislature.
3. I offer substantial evidence supporting jury nullification.
4. You then brush it aside, as though it is elemntary civics. If it were, then why didn't you pick up on it the first time around?
I am tired of being misrepresented and ignored. This is not a discussion; it is a dispute about a non-discussion. CS, you'll have to find someone else whom you can use to show how right you are every time on everything - even if it is off-topic.
