3 ms·
> The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature. They set the interpretation of the law, which could literally go any which way, and is not r
by craftyguy 8y ago
> The courts aren’t there to set law, that is for the legislature.
They set the interpretation of the law, which could literally go any which way, and is not reversible without further legislative action to repeal/amend the law. So in a way, they most definitely set law by solidifying its 'meaning'.
- cryptonector 8y agoAnd then there's common law, which is essentially judge-made law. Case law is very much law. Judges are not supposed to invent law from whole cloth, sure, but they are supposed to make law in a very specific and important sense: by interpreting law (including constitutional law) when its meaning isn't clear. The fact that some judges abuse this to set policy does not mean that judges shouldn't make law -- it only means that some judges don't have the right stuff to be judges. But judge-made law is a thing, and a real and legitimate thing. Downvoting this won't make it not so. Please acquaint yourselves with English and American jurisprudence, law, and constitutions.
- posterboy 8y agoThe problem is one of semantics. Law is an ambiguous term and commentators have different interpretations--let's appreciate the irony for a second.
- cryptonector 8y agoHa, good point. It's worth knowing the difference between law and statute...
- posterboy 8y ago"I say I say I say: Statutory law is not law". This kind of negativity is questionable.