3 ms·
> And how could it be otherwise? A great many countries use "civil law" where court decisions don't create a binding precedent. Some other "common law" countr
by michaelt 2y ago
> And how could it be otherwise?
A great many countries use "civil law" where court decisions don't create a binding precedent.
Some other "common law" countries - like Canada and the UK - have a parliamentary system with first-past-the-post elections. So they don't get any nonsense like "government shut-downs" because of "deadlock" - and if the legislature wants to change the laws, nothing stops them.
- nradov 2y agoThose differences have only minor impacts on this issue. Civil law courts still have to make decisions about ambiguous or conflicting laws. They follow a different process but the fundamental problem remains. And parliamentary systems do nothing to ensure that laws are clear.
- michaelt 2y ago> Those differences have only minor impacts on this issue. Are you sure? To me it seems fairly obvious that critical legal precedents like Roe vs Wade would not occur in a system that did not have the concept of binding legal precedent ?