Judge Rules Convicted Drunk Driver, Previously-Deported Illegal Be Set Free, Allowed to Stay in U.S.

[jem]

you don't know what the hell you are talking about but you are funny.
you are like a comedy skit

you are misusing terms like stare decisis, precedent and defacto law and not aware why I stated trial court decisions are not binding on other trial courts.

this is what you sound like to a person who has taken the time to study a bit of jurisprudence.

T

Wherever did you get the idea that they were binding; certainly NOT from me! I never said that. In fact that is major difference between defacto law and statutory law. Where do you come up with this nonsense. Why don't you google the definition of de facto, then google de facto law. When courts rule the vast majority of the time similar future cases within similar contexts and circumstances are decided similarly, but there is nothing compelling them other than centuries of legal practice. Some lawyer you are!!!

 

[piezoe]

you don't know what the hell you are talking about but you are funny.
you are like a comedy skit

you are misusing terms like stare decisis, precedent and defacto law and not aware why I stated trial court decisions are not binding on other trial courts.

this is what you sound like to a person who has taken the time to study a bit of jurisprudence.

Admit it. You've read nothing I've written. By the way, I am not, in general, referring to trial courts trying criminal and civil cases. I assumed you would understand that from context, but if you don't read what I wrote then you should hardly be surprise when your response isn't germane.

At the risk of being sucked into a jem black hole, I'll give you an example of de facto law being made. The U.S. Supreme Court has ajudicated the question of whether a child born to two immigrant parent present legally in the United States is a U.S. citizen. That case was decided, largely on 14thy Amendment grounds. The child is a U.S. citizen, although the parents are not. This is now de facto law, rather than statutory. It is as if (that's what de facto means by the way) a clause where to be inserted into the 14th Amendment specifically addressing what is to happen in the case of a child born to two, legal immigrant parents, on U.S. soil. This is now, unless and until overturned by the Supreme Court itself, defacto law.

This is specifically the kind and type of decision that courts make, that set a precedent for future court decisions. The decision is not binding on future courts of the same level but is binding on lower courts. This is how courts make law, but it is defacto law, not statutory law.

Incidentally, the case of a child born to two illegal immigrants has not reached the Supreme Court. Legislation, dealing with this situation has been introduced in Congress many times, but has never passed. A Lower Court, presumably a Federal District Court, has ruled that a child born to two illegal immigrants is an American Citizen. That is now de facto law!, unless and until an Appeals Court overturns -- stare decisis is another possible outcome. If another District Court were to hand down an opposite ruling (unlikely, as defacto law establishes precedent ) then a conflict arises and an Appeals court would surely be asked to resolve the conflict.

Both the terms stare decisis and de facto are common legal terms (there use is not limited to law). They taught you what these terms mean in law school, but they were also supposed to teach you how to think. Apparently they failed at the latter.

 

[jem]

I admit when your specifically lecturing about the trial court decision you wrote this....

The decision is not statutory law but rather de facto law, until overturned . The long practice of stare decisis by the higher courts makes that clear. The reason it acts as de facto law is that other courts faced with similar circumstances are quite likely to decide similarly based on the precedent set.... .

and then you tried to hide your ignorance with this back pedal and a reference to the law "in general". No one is arguing about appellate courts and the supreme ct and the existence of stare decisis.

We understand their decision do carry weight and sometimes bind other courts. That is why their rulings are recorded in case law books.

Admit it. You've read nothing I've written. By the way, I am not, in general, referring to trial courts trying criminal and civil cases. I assumed you would understand that from context, but if you don't read what I wrote then you should hardly be surprise when your response isn't germane.

At the risk of being sucked into a jem black hole, I'll give you an example of de facto law being made. The U.S. Supreme Court has ajudicated the question of whether a child born to two immigrant parent present legally in the United States is a U.S. citizen. That case was decided, largely on 14thy Amendment grounds. The child is a U.S. citizen, although the parents are not. This is now de facto law, rather than statutory. It is as if (that's what de facto means by the way) a clause where to be inserted into the 14th Amendment specifically addressing what is to happen in the case of a child born to two, legal immigrant parents, on U.S. soil. This is now, unless and until overturned by the Supreme Court itself, defacto law.

This is specifically the kind and type of decision that courts make, that set a precedent for future court decisions. The decision is not binding on future courts of the same level but is binding on lower courts. This is how courts make law, but it is defacto law, not statutory law.

Incidentally, the case of a child born to two illegal immigrants has not reached the Supreme Court. Legislation, dealing with this situation has been introduced in Congress many times, but has never passed. A Lower Court, presumably a Federal District Court, has ruled that a child born to two illegal immigrants is an American Citizen. That is now de facto law!, unless and until an Appeals Court overturns -- stare decisis is another possible outcome. If another District Court were to hand down an opposite ruling (unlikely, as defacto law establishes precedent ) then a conflict arises and an Appeals court would surely be asked to resolve the conflict.

Both the terms stare decisis and de facto are common legal terms (there use is not limited to law). They taught you what these terms mean in law school, but they were also supposed to teach you how to think. Apparently they failed at the latter.

 

[piezoe]

I admit when your specifically lecturing about the trial court decision you wrote this....



and then you tried to hide your ignorance with this back pedal and a reference to the law "in general". No one is arguing about appellate courts and the supreme ct and the existence of stare decisis.

We understand their decision do carry weight and sometimes bind other courts. That is why their rulings are recorded in case law books.

It's been a struggle, but now you're catching on. Thank god!

 

[jem]

no I caught on to the fact you post garbage for cash a long time ago.

It's been a struggle, but now you're catching on. Thank god!