Because I'm interested in comparative law and the differences between the legal systems of different countries, and my honest opinion is this is a matter in which the US system is worse than that of the other major English-speaking countries.

I can also point to examples of the opposite, where I think the US system does it better – e.g. the abolition of the dock.

> For what purpose would it serve to give up the right to a jury trial in order to mitigate the extreme outlier cases which bump up the averages and which do not actually get any money into the hands of the plaintiffs?

Bernstein's primary argument isn't about outliers, it is about predictability and consistency – judges are much more consistent in the damages they award than juries are. Where juries are in charge of damages, it can turn into a lottery, where some successful plaintiffs win big, and others win small, just based on the luck of the jury pool draw. He argues that's unfair to those less lucky successful plaintiffs, and I think he is correct there. Of course, there can be a similar phenomena with random selection of trial judges, but the variability due to different judges tends to be significantly smaller than the variability due to different juries, since judges are subject to pressures for consistency which do not exist for juries

> You want to destroy a constitutional right because...

Under US constitutional law as it stands, there is no federal constitutional right to a jury trial for civil cases in state courts. The 7th Amendment right to jury trials in civil suits only applies federally, it has not been incorporated against the states under the 14th Amendment. This is unlike the 6th Amendment right to jury trials in criminal cases, which has been incorporated under the 14th (except for the vicinage clause). The piecemeal application of the incorporation doctrine seems rather arbitrary and difficult to rationally justify, but that's SCOTUS precedent as it stands.

Some state constitutions have a state constitutional right to civil jury trials, others don't. For those that don't, there would be no constitutional obstacle to a state legislature implementing Bernstein's proposal to remove damages decisions from juries and shift them to the judge–which is already the norm in every other major English-speaking country. As to those states who do have such a state constitutional right, whether Bernstein's proposal would be compatible with it depends on precisely how that right is worded, and how the state courts choose to interpret those words.

> you think people are too dumb and swayed too easily by lawyers that we can let them decide life or death but can't let them decide how much money someone is owed?

I'm opposed to the death penalty so I don't believe any jury should be deciding life or death.

That said, criminal matters and civil matters are so different, it is rational to hold that juries should be required for one and not the other. Criminal matters are supposed to have a very high burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), where requiring 12 ordinary people to make a unanimous decision can be viewed as an additional protection against wrongful convictions. Civil matters are decided on a much weaker standard (balance of probabilities), so it is not clear whether juries are as necessary for civil cases.