Sandefur took a short break from his travels to briefly reply to DaveScot's terminal cluelessness in a post titled "Why DaveScot Should Stop Playing Lawyer". I'll just quote the first paragraph:
DaveScot is an especially belligerent idiot who was happily adopted as a co-blogger by the credibility-free Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski. Normally, I ignore idiots. But DaveScot has lately dragged my name into a dispute with Ed Brayton--a dispute Brayton was happily and handily winning, as usual--and I thought perhaps I should explain just why DaveScot should stop talking about things he doesn't understand. (Which, of course, would render him silent.)
Dave attempted to argue that I should talk to Sandefur about juries; the truth is that Dave just needs to read more thoroughly and do a little research before opening his mouth. But then, if he did that, he'd lose all of his charm and ability to entertain us, wouldn't he?
Something tells me it goes a bit deeper than that. Even with both you and Sandefur explaining it quite clearly, I look forward to Dave's next effort to dig the hole even deeper. He's chronically unable to keep his mouth shut, even when he hasn't the slightest clue what he's talking about.
So Dave predicted that Sandefur would agree with him, and he has since been proven wrong. How much do you want to bet that Dave is going to change his Hypothesis?
Sandefur makes an interesting point about Dave's suggestion on adjusting the $20 figure that didn't occur to me when I first read it. Dave wants to increase that figure to, as Sandefur calculates, nearly $800, and then deny the jury option to everyone under that amount. This from the man who thinks judges are basically dictators. Of course, if we take his other suggestion about making legal fees count as punitive, not many trials are going to run with less than $800 in the newly defined "punitive damages."