5 ms·

Legislation can be passed but there are still some checks in the legislature. Takes time though but there's examples where the judges have deemed a law unlawfu

Legislation can be passed but there are still some checks in the legislature. Takes time though but there's examples where the judges have deemed a law unlawful. Usually based on common law basis. With this law I'd say that all of what it's trying to address is already covered by existing laws. For example, harassment in public spaces is already illegal.

sofixa 3y ago
> Usually based on common law basis Oh, that's a great basis. Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century and a judge decided whatever, how very useful as a legal base upon which to decide modern things. (Like that story which is the basis of contract law about some ships a couple of centuries ago). It's quite sad how obsolete and overcomplicated for no reason whatsoever (as in, to understand a case today, you have to go dig up precedents going back centuries to understand how they might impact this case; no wonder there's entire professions, software, AI assistants to help lawyers navigate this quagmire) common law is, and how countries have stuck with it.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century I think the point of "common law" is that the precedents describe laws that people basically understand, and they expect that what governs their behaviour now is the law they understand. Statute law, especially modern statute law, tends to be a mess of exceptions, definitions and cross-references. It's all legalese, and only an expert can understand it. Plus, it's all subject to intepretation by the courts, so precedent affects statute law as well as common law. And unlike statutes, most court precedents aren't publicly accessible, unless you have access to a law library or Westlaw. If you expect people to obey the law, then you need to express it in ways that people can understand. If they don't know what the law is, you can't expect them to comply. One of the nice things about the US constitution is that it's mostly written in fairly plain English. I suppose that might be why many non-Americans admire it. One of the nastiest things about it, though, is that its so damned difficult to change.
jruohonen 3y ago
Yet, some analysts have hinted that the UK might be even leaving the ECtHR, which I'd consider the chief European court on these matters.
bloak 3y ago
Can you give an example of a law being deemed unlawful on common law basis? My understanding is that typically precedent is used in the absence of statute law and for the interpretation of statute law, so a new law will typically override older precedents. Perhaps it's up to a judge to decide which takes precedence if two statutes contradict each other, but really that shouldn't happen (Parliament employs lawyers to check for that sort of thing) and if a statute states explicitly that it overrides an earlier one then it does so, as I understand it. (I'm not a lawyer, not even a competent amateur, just interested in this stuff and hoping someone will correct my misunderstandings.)

sofixa 3y ago

> Usually based on common law basis Oh, that's a great basis. Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century and a judge decided whatever, how very useful as a legal base upon which to decide modern things. (Like that story which is the basis of contract law about some ships a couple of centuries ago). It's quite sad how obsolete and overcomplicated for no reason whatsoever (as in, to understand a case today, you have to go dig up precedents going back centuries to understand how they might impact this case; no wonder there's entire professions, software, AI assistants to help lawyers navigate this quagmire) common law is, and how countries have stuck with it.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> Some random lord sued another random merchant in the 16th century I think the point of "common law" is that the precedents describe laws that people basically understand, and they expect that what governs their behaviour now is the law they understand. Statute law, especially modern statute law, tends to be a mess of exceptions, definitions and cross-references. It's all legalese, and only an expert can understand it. Plus, it's all subject to intepretation by the courts, so precedent affects statute law as well as common law. And unlike statutes, most court precedents aren't publicly accessible, unless you have access to a law library or Westlaw. If you expect people to obey the law, then you need to express it in ways that people can understand. If they don't know what the law is, you can't expect them to comply. One of the nice things about the US constitution is that it's mostly written in fairly plain English. I suppose that might be why many non-Americans admire it. One of the nastiest things about it, though, is that its so damned difficult to change.

jruohonen 3y ago

Yet, some analysts have hinted that the UK might be even leaving the ECtHR, which I'd consider the chief European court on these matters.

bloak 3y ago

Can you give an example of a law being deemed unlawful on common law basis? My understanding is that typically precedent is used in the absence of statute law and for the interpretation of statute law, so a new law will typically override older precedents. Perhaps it's up to a judge to decide which takes precedence if two statutes contradict each other, but really that shouldn't happen (Parliament employs lawyers to check for that sort of thing) and if a statute states explicitly that it overrides an earlier one then it does so, as I understand it. (I'm not a lawyer, not even a competent amateur, just interested in this stuff and hoping someone will correct my misunderstandings.)