3 ms·
I'm not arguing with that, since any argument about "beliefs" is pointless. I'm just saying that "legislating from the Bench" is there by design. If you disagre
by maratc 4y ago
I'm not arguing with that, since any argument about "beliefs" is pointless. I'm just saying that "legislating from the Bench" is there by design. If you disagree with the design, it's fine — but this application "works as designed", even if you or me don't like the outcome.
The Continental law is based on another philosophy — you have no rights except the ones that are explicitly given to you by law, and the only way to have more rights passes through the legislature. There are many countries that employ Continental law, but the US is not one of them.
- pyronik19 4y agoCommon Law interpretation sure, you need to use the logic and decisions of the court to inform future decisions, but those decisions must be grounded on actual text and insofar as bad decisions are made they should be corrected. Should we have left all of the bad decisions on slavery and Jim Crow because of stare decisis?
- maratc 4y ago> those decisions must be grounded on actual text Uhm, no — “precedent” is a judicial decision which may not be grounded on any text whatsoever. It’s a common thing in Common law, and of course it doesn’t exist in Continental law.
- pyronik19 4y agowhich may not be grounded on any text whatsoever. Well when your job is to interpret the constitution, it should be grounded on the text. That's why there are textualist who disagree with your interpretation of the role of the court. It is supposed to be the foundation.