We just came out of another election, let me explain it one more time! All one has to do is spend a couple of evenings watching late evening television to realize that we have a brand new menu of medical syndromes and disorders to choose from. “Experts” are telling us they don’t have a clue or pharmaceutical companies are offering a new “miracle” pill to make us all feel good, like we did before our country suffered from Electile Dysfunction.
Anyone who has ever attended an Internal Revenue Service court case likely noticed the biased attitude of the presiding judge in favor of the prosecution. Perhaps, though, only those of us who have sat in courtrooms, in every section of the country, can attest to this unwavering pattern of unfairness. Whatever happened to the judge’s impartial role of “referee”?
In 1670, the right of jurors to judge both the law and the facts became part of British constitutional law. It ultimately became part of American constitutional law as well, but you'd never know it listening to jury instructions today almost anywhere in the country. With only a few exceptions, juries are explicitly or implicitly told to worry only about the facts and let the judge decide the law. The right of jury nullification has become one of the legal system's best kept secrets.