I am suspicious of all agents of the state. If you ask Patterico if that is justified, I’ll bet real-life dollars that he will agree that we should all be suspicious of agents of the state.

Methinks Xrlq spends entirely too much time on the internet. Can you say blog uberloser?

What are you if you spend your time commenting on the site of an uberloser?

Uh Huh….Because that is so like him. ”

Like him? It’s his fucking m.o. See the Greenwald posts from before.

Notice how he practically slurps up the vomit of Patterico’s one eyed monster on a daily basis? Gee, I wonder why that would be?

The dude is a blog remora.

And who decides what the law means? Oh, that’d be judges, who are usually lawyers, yes?

Usually, sure, but only because legal training helps you perform the tasks of the job, not because it’s a requirement. If you as a non-lawyer think you can convince a majority of your constituents that you are qualified to be a judge, by all means, run for office or lobby your governor to appoint you as one. But if they don’t think you’re qualified to do a job like that, then you might want to consider that there is at least a remote possibility that they’re … um … RIGHT?

“‘Six of one…’

not even remotely.

Not remotely, but precisely. Calling for jurors to make up the law as they go along is an attack on the rule of law, and will result in laws being unpredictable. Lawyers are more acutely aware of that than most non-lawyers, but it’s not our interest; it’s everyone’s.

And who decides what the law means? Oh, that’d be judges, who are usually lawyers, yes? The legislature isn’t exactly known for interpreting the law.

‘Six of one…’

not even remotely.

Isn’t that, err, you stating that non-lawyers ought not decide matters of law? and just the facts?

No, it’s, err, me stating that jurors ought to decide only the facts, not the law. Not all jurors are non-lawyers, and not all judges or legislators are lawyers. Legal training helps in these areas, of course, but it’s not a requirement.

The argument I made is not that lawyers have no more of a vested interest in protecting the rule of law than the rest of society does but that lawyers do have an interest in the rest of society not deciding on matters of law.

Six of one…

I also never intimated that patterico benefited from any asset seizure.

And Uncle, your “Well, it shouldn’t be surprising that lawyers don’t like non-lawyers to decide on matters of law” is almost as lame. Lawyers have no more of a vested interest in protecting the rule of law than the rest of society does.

Well, speaking of irony and bringing up posts from comments past, some lawyer said:

It’s always fun watching the Balkos of the world argue passionately about how our legal system is supposedly designed to allow juries to judge the law rather than just the facts.

He also said:

If you think the proper role of the jury is to rule on the law itself and not just on the facts, then why should any jury verdicts, civil or criminal, be appealable?

And:

“Justice” is too slippery of a concept to be entrusted to 12 random jurors who have no specialized knowledge of it anyway

Isn’t that, err, you stating that non-lawyers ought not decide matters of law? and just the facts? The argument I made is not that lawyers have no more of a vested interest in protecting the rule of law than the rest of society does but that lawyers do have an interest in the rest of society not deciding on matters of law.