Well, if you want to only base judicial decision making on “written law”, we’d better start writing. Let’s start with constitutional amendments clarifying all of the issues in Morse v. Fredericks (the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case). Let’s start by putting the concept of public education into the constitution, along with the powers of public schools to suspend students and for what. I’d love to hear all of the arguments for and against that. “No senator, under the proposed amendment, it would not be grounds for suspension to invite a fellow student to mass.” “But senator, that is enticing another to profess belief in return for alcohol usage.”
The point being that there are far, far, far more situations than can be adressed in advance. We must have a way of filling in the cracks. Even in civil law jurisdictions, where stare decisis is not official, lower courts do follow the reasoning of appeals courts.
There is a subtle presumption by those who wish to change process, that their views would hold sway after reform. We should throw the bums out of Congress for not getting things done. They should be replaced by those who would not pass a stimulus package, and who will not touch entitlements. They would lower taxes and balance the budget. And they would magically get a job for brother-in-laws.
5 Comments
I’d have no problem in supporting Rep. Schultz’s law. I’d love to see our judicial system go by the written law instead of our current system.
Well, if you want to only base judicial decision making on “written law”, we’d better start writing. Let’s start with constitutional amendments clarifying all of the issues in Morse v. Fredericks (the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case). Let’s start by putting the concept of public education into the constitution, along with the powers of public schools to suspend students and for what. I’d love to hear all of the arguments for and against that. “No senator, under the proposed amendment, it would not be grounds for suspension to invite a fellow student to mass.” “But senator, that is enticing another to profess belief in return for alcohol usage.”
The point being that there are far, far, far more situations than can be adressed in advance. We must have a way of filling in the cracks. Even in civil law jurisdictions, where stare decisis is not official, lower courts do follow the reasoning of appeals courts.
It is not the stupidity of non-lawyer legislators, but rather the cupidity of lawyer legislators that worries me.
So if the law isn’t written, the suit isn’t prosecutable?
There is a subtle presumption by those who wish to change process, that their views would hold sway after reform. We should throw the bums out of Congress for not getting things done. They should be replaced by those who would not pass a stimulus package, and who will not touch entitlements. They would lower taxes and balance the budget. And they would magically get a job for brother-in-laws.