Katherine Harris says failure to elect Christians will `legislate sin'

KRT Wire ^ | 8/25/2006 | Jim Stratton

[jf55510]

Starting in the 1100's.

[Mojave]

you started this whole thing by stating the states made up their common law.

You lie.

[Mojave]

Starting in the 1100's.

"As we have seen the basis of Common Law was custom. The itinerant justices set out by William the Conqueror examined the different local practises of dealing with disputes and crime, filtered our the less practical and reasonable ones, and ended up with a set of laws which were to be applied uniformly throughout the country."

http://www.revision-notes.co.uk/revision/902.html

Custom, not "made up by juges".

Read a book.

[Torie]

And become the force of law effectively, if the court holdings were published at the appellate court level, unlike Civil Law nations, unless reversed by statute. The balance of power changed. I am a big fan by the way of court legal precedent becoming law, until reversed. Fact patterns are so variable, that without such "law," we would get individual courts deciding cases in more idiosyncratic ways, case by case. That is not "good." It creates more uncertainty as to what the law is, in particular fact patterns. Uncertainty as to what the law is, creates more risk. Risk is a cost, economically and otherwise. That is why Civil Law nations are moving towards the concept of court legal precedential authority. To do otherwise, incurs more risk costs. It also runs increased risk of folks in similar situations, getting different legal results. That is unjust.

[Mojave]

I am a big fan by the way of court legal precedent becoming law, until reversed.

That's fine when the precedent reflects the customary local practices for dealing with disputes and crime, but not when judges "make up" laws out of thin air.

[jf55510]

Then who made it up and got it to be a part of the legal system?

[Torie]

Well it was "fashioned" by judges, trying to interpret whatever was out there. If the legislature does not like such fashioning, or interpretion or existing statutory or Constitutional law, they can pass a statute, or in the US, and other nations with a Constitution and the common law tradition, amend the Consitution, if it is a Constitutional issue.

[PhiKapMom]

You have that right! Looks like I made the hit list of the KH folks because I dared say she is a louzy candidate and told someone to stuff it!

What's with the KH folks?

[jf55510]

We have already been through this.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1690257/posts?page=357#357

[PhiKapMom]

They were very good. I freaked out when I heard her say that and watched the reply, made several calls, sent emails and she withdrew the statement.

[Mojave]

Then who made it up

You're the one sourcelessly pretending it was "made up", not me.

[Mojave]

We have already been through this.

And yet you hope that resurrecting your sourceless and refuted argument will avail you something.

[jf55510]

From Wiki:

Before the institutional stability imposed on England by William the Conqueror in 1066, English residents, like those of many other societies, particularly the Germanic cultures of continental Europe, were governed by unwritten local customs that varied from community to community and were enforced in often arbitrary fashion. For example, courts generally consisted of informal public assemblies that weighed conflicting claims in a case and, if unable to reach a decision, might require an accused to test guilt or innocence by carrying a red-hot iron or snatching a stone from a cauldron of boiling water or some other "test" of veracity (trial by ordeal).

In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalised common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems.

[jf55510]

And yet you hope that resurrecting your sourceless and refuted argument will avail you something.

Nope, just using your own words.

[Mojave]

Well it was "fashioned" by judges, trying to interpret whatever was out there

The prevailing local customs and practices were out there.

[jf55510]

It had to have come from somewhere. So if judges didn't make up, who did? A legal fairy. A dog. A pixie. Druids. Preachers. Who?

[Mojave]

Nope, just using your own words.

You lie.

[Alter Kaker]

Kind of hard to argue against that. Too bad the moniker of "Straight Talk Express" is already taken.

So you oppose all Jewish candidates on general principle? You're a real class act.

[Mojave]

So if judges didn't make up, who did?

"As we have seen the basis of Common Law was custom. The itinerant justices set out by William the Conqueror examined the different local practises of dealing with disputes and crime, filtered our the less practical and reasonable ones, and ended up with a set of laws which were to be applied uniformly throughout the country."

You must enjoy being thrashed.

[Torie]

As I said, it is a power issue. Courts claim that they are following statute and Constitutional law, and are not rogue, ignoring a reasonable interpretation of saem. When they are rogue, in the eye of the beholder, the remedy is a new statute of amended Constitution, or a new court. The issue is about the relative power of the Courts and the legilature, and whether giving courts the power to create "law," until reversed by new statutes or an amended Constitution, is worth the cost of uncertainty in particular fact patterns, and inconsistent legal results. This is the most controversial of course, when it comes to Constitutional issues, since it is very difficult to amend the Constitution, in the US. But without an independent judicial branch, parsing its meaning, with the force of law, that document would become a largely dead letter, in the sense that it would have not much more force and effect than a mere statute, and would apply differently per different courts, and in different jurisdictions.