3 ms·

This is judicially illiterate: "Common law refers to laws that are based on the customs and principles of society, which are used in court case decisions in si

This is judicially illiterate: "Common law refers to laws that are based on the customs and principles of society, which are used in court case decisions in situations not covered by civil law statutes." Your post appears oblivious to the distinction between common law and civil law systems, to the role societal customs play when interpreting the law, and to the role SCOTUS plays in the judicial machine

AlbertCory 4y ago
Your post appears oblivious to the distinction between a question of fact and a question of law. You, in fact, are judicially illiterate. I don't care how it's done in France. This is all about the US. An appellate court here deals only with questions of law. "Societal customs" may have created our system, but that's the system we have.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  I make no secret of the fact that I am judicially illiterate, and I can see that so are you. You can read any of the famous dissenting opiniona of a suppreme court justice, and see that they highly consider 'how will society be affected if we choose A vs B'. Thats is not a matter of law. Furthermore, there are constant argument about how much legislaring from the bench supreme court should be doing. And about the fact that lawmakers are sleeping on the job forces SC to do so. Lartly, supreme court unding their own decision on abortion, the law hasn't changed.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    > I am judicially illiterate, and I can see that so are you you're half right. Assuming you're not a lawyer: what credentials do you bring to the table? As far as I can tell, you're as ignorant as the average person.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    .. and now I understand that you think "doesn't agree with me" is the same as "illiterate." You've read a few articles and have opinions. That's fine. Many people do think it's all subjective and political, as you apparently do. Someone else here could argue with you and it would just degenerate into The Culture Wars, iteration 8799.0. I don't feel like doing that today, though. My background in legal training, publications, and experience would shut down your "illiterate" part. You'd probably just ignore it and repeat what you already said about judicial decisions, though. So I think we're done here.

AlbertCory 4y ago

Your post appears oblivious to the distinction between a question of fact and a question of law. You, in fact, are judicially illiterate. I don't care how it's done in France. This is all about the US. An appellate court here deals only with questions of law. "Societal customs" may have created our system, but that's the system we have.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago
I make no secret of the fact that I am judicially illiterate, and I can see that so are you. You can read any of the famous dissenting opiniona of a suppreme court justice, and see that they highly consider 'how will society be affected if we choose A vs B'. Thats is not a matter of law. Furthermore, there are constant argument about how much legislaring from the bench supreme court should be doing. And about the fact that lawmakers are sleeping on the job forces SC to do so. Lartly, supreme court unding their own decision on abortion, the law hasn't changed.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  > I am judicially illiterate, and I can see that so are you you're half right. Assuming you're not a lawyer: what credentials do you bring to the table? As far as I can tell, you're as ignorant as the average person.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  .. and now I understand that you think "doesn't agree with me" is the same as "illiterate." You've read a few articles and have opinions. That's fine. Many people do think it's all subjective and political, as you apparently do. Someone else here could argue with you and it would just degenerate into The Culture Wars, iteration 8799.0. I don't feel like doing that today, though. My background in legal training, publications, and experience would shut down your "illiterate" part. You'd probably just ignore it and repeat what you already said about judicial decisions, though. So I think we're done here.