It's not that the squawkers are powerlessness, in my opinion--it's that they mistake squawking for courage, virtue, activism, what have you. Less talk, more walk: that would be my preference.

But I can't side with lying under oath. Oaths are "institutional" in that they are administered to all and compel an adherence to a standard of honesty external to our own sense of private right and wrong. To create a better, more just society by undermining a shared social basis of honest voir dire for jury selection seems, well, back-ass-ward.

That said, I can certainly see a place for quiet resistance in an unjust society, but I'd prefer not to employ unjust means to enact it. This is a really important discussion: it may be one that half the country if forced to consider if authoritarianism wins the day.