Catholic priest views on god.

[jem]

Before statutes there was common law.
most statutes codified the common law.
The supreme court created judicial review out of thin air. It was not in the constitution.

Thats fact.

Your b.s. creation skills although marvelous can not change fact to opinion. therefore your opinion is wrong.

Finally perhaps I am giving you too much credit.
You seem to misunderstand the whole argument.
I prefer the strict construction point of view and i would like to see limits restrict judges ability to legislate from the bench....
but I am not laying the foundation for that position right now... you are.

I am telling you that judges have taken the power upon themselves to make law, although I would prefer if they stuck to the constitution.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from jem:

Before statutes there was common law.
most statutes codified the common law.
The supreme court created judicial review out of thin air. It was not in the constitution.

Thats fact.

I should warn you that Optional has never been proven wrong, at least on any topic that I'm aware of.

 

[jem]

Quote from Ricter:

I should warn you that Optional has never been proven wrong, at least on any topic that I'm aware of.

actually you can win if you are willing to bring up some of the bad things his previous alias' wrote... I think the moderators shut him down when that happens.

but, otherwise, I agree, he is probably paid to start threads, troll, b.s. and use his very solid rhetorical skills.

I actually enjoy the test because he does seem to be a professional and is as good as people can get when he does not have the facts on his side.

he parry's, he looks for one area to start a new direction, or he will hammer a foe who shows a psychological chink in his internet armor.

He is a robo troll with skills. On this thread, because I brought up two or three different points - I lost control.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

"I lost control."

Need I say more?

Quote from jem:

actually you can win if you are willing to bring up some of the bad things his previous alias' wrote... I think the moderators shut him down when that happens.

but, otherwise, I agree, he is probably paid to start threads, troll, b.s. and use his very solid rhetorical skills.

I actually enjoy the test because he does seem to be a professional and is as good as people can get when he does not have the facts on his side.

he parry's, he looks for one area to start a new direction, or he will hammer a foe who shows a psychological chink in his internet armor.

He is a robo troll with skills. On this thread, because I brought up two or three different points - I lost control.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Common law is not modern law, period. Common law is subject to interpretation of judges and courts. At any time they can rule differently if they make an appropriate argument based on some new law or their take on the Constitution, etc.

"therefore your opinion is wrong."

Your opinion of my opinion being wrong is wrong.

You really are quite a marvel when it comes to making this easy...

"I am telling you that judges have taken the power upon themselves to make law, although I would prefer if they stuck to the constitution."

I am telling you that judges have exercised their power to interpret the law based on their opinions and the cases they review. They do stick to the constitution, just not your opinion of how the constitution should be "stuck" to.

Just like the Bible, people have different takes on the same words...who is to ultimately say if their opinions are right or wrong?

Only God knows, and the self righteous proclaim to know. Otherwise, reasonable men make their arguments, and the system goes forward just like it has from the beginning. I prefer our system to Sharia Law, or having he Pope or some other appointed "messenger of God" have their opinion fixed and without remedy...

Yes, I know you are a constructionists...so what? You are also a conservative, yada, yada, yada. Just point to the Constitution and tell me exactly where it says that the Constitution should be followed in the manner the constructions opinion of it should be followed?

Quote from jem:

Before statutes there was common law.
most statutes codified the common law.
The supreme court created judicial review out of thin air. It was not in the constitution.

Thats fact.

Your b.s. creation skills although marvelous can not change fact to opinion. therefore your opinion is wrong.

Finally perhaps I am giving you too much credit.
You seem to misunderstand the whole argument.
I prefer the strict construction point of view and i would like to see limits restrict judges ability to legislate from the bench....
but I am not laying the foundation for that position right now... you are.

I am telling you that judges have taken the power upon themselves to make law, although I would prefer if they stuck to the constitution.

 

[jem]

Common Law is law made by judges.

"In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law).[10]
...


As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[16] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[17]....



All states have codified some or all of their statutory law into legal codes. Codification was an idea borrowed from the civil law through the efforts of American lawyer David Dudley Field.[47] New York's codes are known as "Laws." California and Texas simply call them "Codes." Other states use terms such as "Revised Statutes" or "Compiled Statutes" for their compilations. California, New York, and Texas have separate subject-specific codes, while all other states and the federal government use a single code divided into numbered titles.

In some states, codification is often treated as a mere restatement of the common law, to the extent that the subject matter of the particular statute at issue was covered by some judge-made principle at common law. Judges are free to liberally interpret the codes unless and until their interpretations are specifically overridden by the legislature.[48] In other states, there is a tradition of strict adherence to the plain text of the codes.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Common Law is the law of the people, by the people and for the people.

Common Law is made by the people on juries when their judgments become precedents.

Statute Law is made by the other two arms or branches of government, ie: parliamentary and executive.

In Common Law countires, "Common Law doth control Acts of Parliament and when adjudged against common right to be void" (Lord Coke), ie: Common Law overrules Statute Law.

Juries nullify Statute Law.

Parliaments amend and repeal Statute Law - and have no role in making Common Law.

Judges have no role in making either Common Law nor Statute Law.

Source of above:

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_common_law_be_made_by_judges#ixzz1DJH25JgB

Quote from jem:

Common Law is law made by judges.

"In the United States, the law is derived from four sources. These four sources are constitutional law, statutory law, administrative regulations, and the common law (which includes case law).[10]
...


As common law courts, U.S. courts have inherited the principle of stare decisis.[16] American judges, like common law judges elsewhere, not only apply the law, they also make the law, to the extent that their decisions in the cases before them become precedent for decisions in future cases.[17]....



All states have codified some or all of their statutory law into legal codes. Codification was an idea borrowed from the civil law through the efforts of American lawyer David Dudley Field.[47] New York's codes are known as "Laws." California and Texas simply call them "Codes." Other states use terms such as "Revised Statutes" or "Compiled Statutes" for their compilations. California, New York, and Texas have separate subject-specific codes, while all other states and the federal government use a single code divided into numbered titles.

In some states, codification is often treated as a mere restatement of the common law, to the extent that the subject matter of the particular statute at issue was covered by some judge-made principle at common law. Judges are free to liberally interpret the codes unless and until their interpretations are specifically overridden by the legislature.[48] In other states, there is a tradition of strict adherence to the plain text of the codes.''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_the_United_States

 

[jem]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Common Law is the law of the people, by the people and for the people.

Common Law is made by the people on juries when their judgments become precedents.

Statute Law is made by the other two arms or branches of government, ie: parliamentary and executive.

In Common Law countires, "Common Law doth control Acts of Parliament and when adjudged against common right to be void" (Lord Coke), ie: Common Law overrules Statute Law.

Juries nullify Statute Law.

Parliaments amend and repeal Statute Law - and have no role in making Common Law.

Judges have no role in making either Common Law nor Statute Law.

Source of above:

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_common_law_be_made_by_judges#ixzz1DJH25JgB

I do not know who made that garbage up, but it is nonsense.

Juries are triers of fact in CA.

The judge instructs them on the law. (the jury instructions mostly codified in BAJI) and then asks them to apply the facts to the law and make a decision about the facts. The decisions do not guide other courts... There is no legal precedent set by a jury.

(jury nullification is the only way a jury could be even considered a legal action because there they refuse to follow the law - but that is a red herring - as to whether judges make law.)

The creation of precedent starts when a person comes before the judge and asks them to make a decision as a matter of law.

 

[OPTIONAL777]

Once again, you are getting emotional and spewing opinion...not fact.

For every quote you come up with, I can match it with the opposite point of view of some Wiki stuff.

All you can do is say I am wrong, but you offer no incontrovertible proof.

Which makes my case, as you claim something we a fact that simply is not undisputed fact...You claim judges and courts make law, and that is not a fact...that is your opinion, as shown by all the quotes I have provided.

A supreme court justice says judges and courts don't make law...but you are a higher expert than she is?

Don't you get it, you are arguing your opinion, not discussing facts.

Quote from jem:

I do not know who made that garbage up, but it is nonsense.

Juries are triers of fact.
The judge instructs them on the law. (the jury instructions mostly codified in BAJI) and them asks them to apply the facts to the law and make a decision about the facts.

Juries do no make the law in California. Except maybe with jury nullification.

But juries do not set a precedent other courts have to follow.

When are you going to give up this foolish quest.
Sooner or later you might get some jurisprudence right like the bllind squirel who gets a nut....

But so far, you have been incredibly wrong.

Precedent come when a person comes before the judge and asked them to make a decision as a matter of law.

 

[jem]

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Common Law is the law of the people, by the people and for the people.

Common Law is made by the people on juries when their judgments become precedents.

Statute Law is made by the other two arms or branches of government, ie: parliamentary and executive.

In Common Law countires, "Common Law doth control Acts of Parliament and when adjudged against common right to be void" (Lord Coke), ie: Common Law overrules Statute Law.

Juries nullify Statute Law.

Parliaments amend and repeal Statute Law - and have no role in making Common Law.

Judges have no role in making either Common Law nor Statute Law.

Source of above:

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_common_law_be_made_by_judges#ixzz1DJH25JgB

I clicked on your link. This is what it says.



Common Law is made by judges particularly in areas of torts and contracts.

Marbury vs. Madison is a famous case in which the U.S. Supreme Court decided that it had a right to review and strike down laws made by Congress even though nothing in the U.S. Constitution gave the court that power.

Jury decisions do not set legal precedent.



Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Can_common_law_be_made_by_judges#ixzz1DJW2PVGZ