4 ms·

Most (good) laws did not originate from statute. Laws against murder originated in the courts (in the common law tradition). Torts originated in the courts. The

Most (good) laws did not originate from statute. Laws against murder originated in the courts (in the common law tradition). Torts originated in the courts. The claim of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress was invented / discovered within the past 50-or-so years. You’re fundamentally backwards on the assumption that laws generally originate from statutes. The most important, cornerstone laws of western society were merely “codified” in recent years as an attempt to undermine the judiciary… which under prevailing jurisprudence means they are mostly nullities.

crazygringo 2y ago
It doesn't matter where our laws against murder were invented originally, historically. Today in the US they are codified into actual statute. I have never in my life heard the claim that the codification of law is an attempt to "undermine the judiciary"... after all, statutes passed by democratically elected representatives is the very cornerstone of democratic governance. I'm genuinely curious, is your perspective something you've come up with on your own? Or did you get it from somewhere else, is there a name or movement behind it? I've simply never come across the idea that the power of courts should be elevated so far above that of legislatures. (I mean, judicial review is one thing, but that's limited to conflicts between legislation and the constitution.)
- goodluckchuck 2y ago
  It’s a process I’ve seen play out many times in my state. The legislature will pass a bad law. The courts will explain the situation, fix it, and move on. The legislature then won’t have the votes to pass a contradictory amendment, so they “codify” in a way that leaves something out of context or creates an ambiguity. Litigants then cite the statute instead of the precedent… even though they legislature never actually changed the law.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

crazygringo 2y ago

It doesn't matter where our laws against murder were invented originally, historically. Today in the US they are codified into actual statute. I have never in my life heard the claim that the codification of law is an attempt to "undermine the judiciary"... after all, statutes passed by democratically elected representatives is the very cornerstone of democratic governance. I'm genuinely curious, is your perspective something you've come up with on your own? Or did you get it from somewhere else, is there a name or movement behind it? I've simply never come across the idea that the power of courts should be elevated so far above that of legislatures. (I mean, judicial review is one thing, but that's limited to conflicts between legislation and the constitution.)

goodluckchuck 2y ago
It’s a process I’ve seen play out many times in my state. The legislature will pass a bad law. The courts will explain the situation, fix it, and move on. The legislature then won’t have the votes to pass a contradictory amendment, so they “codify” in a way that leaves something out of context or creates an ambiguity. Litigants then cite the statute instead of the precedent… even though they legislature never actually changed the law.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]