This actually is a global warming question?

It's not necessarily fair. If it comes down to conflicting stories, and a juror knew one of the people and knows that that person always lied, and his story was in conflict with another person the juror knew always told the truth, then that juror might be able to make the correct decision while another that didn't know those people would not.

It could work the other way too, though.

I think it is similar to the prohibition against jurors using "expert knowledge" to persuade their fellow jurors. I rarely watched "Quincy, M.E", but I did see one where he was on a jury (very unlikely) and his medical expertise made it so that he understood something that the rest of the jurors did not. He could not just tell them "I'm a medical examiner and you should listen to me," probably because that gives a single juror too much influence. Instead he had to find a way so that they all understood what he understood, without him telling them.

Yes you have a right to be judged by a jury of your peers - people who live nearby you that may have had similar experiences as you to to their locality. This is good. Brings in the values of the community and allows the community to see the results.

Right to face an accuser - this is good. It helps reduce false accusations if you have to get up in front of a judge and possibly people in your neighborhood and state how a person has harmed you in some way. You don't want to be caught in a lie.

With AGW, is the "jury of the peers" the lay public, the politicians, or climatologists? We know the scientist making the claims (IPCC, US NAS and most government agencies, most college universities most scientific organizations), but only a couple of the "skeptics" are known. We know the basic credentials and sources of funding of the scientists, but very little verifiable information about the deniers. Wonder why that is? Are the denialists afraid to openly accuse those they accuse without anonymity? Why? What are they hiding??

Both those are good and fair. I can't think of a reason why they would be trying to abolish those things. I do know, that Monsanto put a Lawyer who was a Lawyer for them into the FDA and OBama elected to put another Monsanto Lawyer into the SUPREME Court chair. Should THAT be allowed???

Talk about cronyism, why would that be allowed? Why?

And why is geoengineering allowed???

As to your questions, that's very suspicious.

It is only reasonable. To not do that would give up possible impartiality. That is the same reason a judge should recuse himself/herself when he or she personally knows a party of either side of the issue. At all costs, the decorum of partiality must be maintained. It is part of the 5th Amendment 'due process' clause.

Good and good. Yes, more fair. Abolish. No reason I can think of.

Global warming question. Okay, analogy on the way I suppose....

Carbon dioxide, SUVs and hydrocarbon fuels are not human beings and do not have constitutional rights.

No it isn't. Another denialist lie