Common Law

>>1431639
>Also post your favourite precedent setting cases
Canada here, I'll start:
This was a Supreme Court ruling, so it's not civil law, but basically R v Feeney determined that police cannot enter a home without a search warrant, or without "hot pursuit". It's a pretty dumb case but basically a guy beat an elderly man to death with a crowbar, then robbed him.
An anonymous tip led the cops to this guys trailer. They kicked in his door, saw he was covered in blood, and arrested him. His lawyer then argued it was unreasonable search and seizure and the case went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the cops were not in hot pursuit when they entered his trailer, so that evidence collected i.e. him being covered in blood in his trailer, was inadmisable because police didn't have a warrant and had no reasonable reason to believe he would have fled before they could have obtained a warrant.
The guy was found guilty anyway based on other circumstantial evidence

>>1431639
Even absent Napoleon's institution of the Civil Code, I don't think Anglo style common law systems would have caught on elsewhere. The common law is, in the Burkean sense, a very conservative system, in the sense that it reflects the decisions of many centuries' worth of judges and cases, and for most of that history (practically all of it at the time of Napoleon) it reflected the customs and traditions which were specific to England. Even Scots law has some notable differences from the common law.

Common law conceptions of inheritance, contract law, and property rights would only seem appropriate to someone of English heritage, so exporting them to a place with a radically different set of traditions, customs and even geography would not have worked. Even in the US, some adjustments had to be made to the traditional common law to account for some doctrines that did not seem to work as well there as in England.

From a certain point of view, you could say that Islamic jurisprudence is similar to the common law: jurists decide questions of law under Sharia, and those decisions bind the faithful. Obviously this is a superficial comparison, and not being an expert in Islamic law, I can't comment further.

As for cases, McCulloch v. Maryland is a very significant US case. In English law, I always liked R v Dudley and Stephens for the proposition that just because you are shipwrecked and fearing death doesn't mean you can kill and cannibalize your shipmate.

>>1431752
>doesn't mean you can kill and cannibalize your shipmate.
Cannibalizing shipmates who were already dead was common practice desu. But yeah, the murder was pretty brutal.
In Canada we have common law, except Quebec has the Quebec Civil Code, because when Britain won the 7 year war and France ceded New France to Britain, the British let the French settlers there keep their language (French), their religion (Catholicism) and their law (Napoleonic Code)
So that's why we're stuck with Quebec.
One big difference between Quebec and other provinces, is that Quebec has a lot of consumer protection statutes, whereas in the rest of Canada consumer protection is based on shady precedents and is often a grey area. Quebec has strict laws about advertising to Children, First Nations and the Elderly, basically vulnerable groups. A lot more trades are regulated as well, such as travel agents and real estate agents.

In Ontario, where I'm from, most codified civil law is about real estate ownership, such as the Land Titles act and Condominium act. There's also the automobile insurance act, but that's based on a precedent. The court made a ruling based on "no fault insurance" and gave the Provincial government 6 months to come up with legislation to solve it.

sorry if I rambled.

>>1431795
I just read through precedent setting cases in Canada and it seems most of them affect the Indian Act and first nations shit

Common law has its shortcomings due to lack of formal codification, hell the E&W law covering mixed bank account trusts is a fucking nightmare where every other generation a more judge comes along and virtually ignores everything the previous gen said to apply their own interpretation. They don't even straight-up deny, they literally say "well there's no evidence pointing to the contrary" EVEN THOUGH THE PREVIOUS JUDGES STRAIGHT UP GAVE THE SAME REASONING FOR THE OPPOSITE ARGUMENT.

However it's the to-go law for International Commercial Law because of freedom to contract/not to contract, and I'm especially talking about E&W common law here. There's a reason why all them arbitration tribunals are in London

>>1433131
*a more serious

>>1433138
*a more senior judge, wtf is wrong with me

>>1431639
Why the fuck do you people like Common Law ? Do you appreciate the fact that judges have the right to interpret laws as they wish, without any restraint, even if they do not represent the will of the people ? Do you enjoy the government of judges ?

t. French law student

>>1433151
I think it has to do with the law being more flexible to change

File: 16983263-Abstract-word-cloud-for-Scots-law-with-related-tags-and-terms-Stock-Photo.jpg (277KB, 1300x1229px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 1300x1229px

Scots Law best Law

>>1433151
>Do you appreciate the fact that judges have the right to interpret laws as they wish, without any restraint, even if they do not represent the will of the people ? Do you enjoy the government of judges ?
The judiciary is independent from government. The will of the people is irrelevant to cases that have never happened before
Example here in Canada the case "Rossy v City of Westmount"

Gabriel Rossy was sitting in his car in a parking lot on city property. A tree randomly fell onto his car and killed him
The family sued the city claiming the city should have removed the diseased tree before
The court ruled in favour if the family and the city was liable

Now this precedent is law; cities are liable if trees on city property fall and cause person injury

Now what this has done is forced municipalities to employ arborists to check trees, as well as forced cities to remove diseased trees.
in civil code system how is this issue resolved? The tree damage liability act?

>>1433193
Scots law is similar to how Quebec civil law works it seems
We have both common law and civil code

>>1433151
>that judges have the right to interpret laws as they wish
They can't interpret laws which aren't there. Usually the court just fills in the blanks and does their best to follow legislation in the sense that the people who wrote it intended

Especially for criminal matters the supreme court will often make a judgement on something such as euthanasia for the terminally ill, and then instruct parliament to pass legislation which fits the guidelines in their ruling, and until that legislation is passed the court ruling is law

Most civil matters don't go to parliament though, it's all interpreted through precedents and existing statutes

>>1433193
This

Best of both worlds

Reminder that Common Law was also created by French people.

You can't escape the Frenchness.

>>1433638
>Common Law was also created by French people.
Wasn't it Roman?

>>1433644
>>1433638

It's English, so no and no.

>>1431639

Precedent. Common Law effectively outlines why a given act was criminal, and clearly states what the penalty for doing something will be. The Code Civil tries to cover all possibilities, meaning that novel crimes often go unpunished, and it's reliance on judge's interpretations means two people can commit the same crime and get a different penalty, making it much less suitable for entrepreneurship.

>>1433644
Nah, it developed in the 12th and 13th centuries in England, mostly growing from the assizes of Henry II and the Magna Carta.

Roman law is usually associated with civil law, though that's not entirely true either.

>>1433652
It's medieval "English", remember who was in charge of England at the time?

It was developed in England by French people.

I have to do a couple commercial law papers as part of an accounting degree, I quite like how you can trace the development of law through the various cases like with negligence, also as a NZer it feels comfy we can trace our laws back through to England, lends a sense of weight to it.

>>1433660
>Normans were French

>>1433644

that's civil law, and to a smaller extent

File: oddface.jpg (5KB, 250x172px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 250x172px

>>1433599

>judges are literally legislating
>anglos think this is acceptable

>>1433660

It derived from Anglo-Saxon roots, not continental ones.

File: Magna Carta participants.png (106KB, 1464x877px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1464x877px

>>1433685
>>1433725
lmao, sure is pure Anglo-Saxon Germanic Viking names all over the Magna Carta.

>>1433732
Magna Carta isn't the basis of common law, although it is the basis of the jury by peers system

>>1433735
It's one of the pillars of common law. The other being the assizes of Henry II (aka Henri d'Anjou), starting with the Assize of Clarendon.

>>1433722
>judges are literally legislating
Juries can too as in Hunt v Sutton (Canada) which held Hunt's employer accountable for providing alcohol at a work party but not providing safe transportation home.
A jury ruled the employer was 25% liable and that is now law.
We afford the courts that power

>>1433750

no wonder in America judges have to be elected

Here in Brazil judges reach their station by winning public contests. You just have to flawlessly know your shit about law.

>>1433599
So it's good because you need a person to die to make a law that is common sense and should already exist? That's your defense?

>>1431639

So, just out of curiosity, does anyone know of any caselaw about people challenging their own accomodations they got under the ADA? Mildly interested, since I have some ADA provisions of my own that I dont' think are strictly necessary, and while I'm not really interested in suing my boss over it, I'm a bit curious as to whether or not I'd have a chance if I did so.

>>1433764

In America, only some (and only state) judges are elected. Most are appointed.

>>1433151

We like little things such as uniformity and predictability. Common law ensures that two people in similar circumstances get similar treatment under the law at trial, because judges are bound by precedent. You don't have that in civil law.

Plus, it provides a check on the legislature, and given how dumb most of them are, that's probably necessary.

>>1433764
one of the few things that are actually good about this country desu famnhor
Choosing your state's attorney via elections, what the actual fuck

>>1433732

What do you think this proves? Show me a non-English basis for any of the precepts of Common Law. Trial by jury? Adversarial prosecutor / defendant arrangement? Circuit judges? Precedent being set by any judge but applied to all of them?

>>1433847
It all goes back to the assizes and the Magna Carta.

>>1433764
Judges in Canada are appointed

>>1433765
>need a person to die to make a law that is common sense and should already exist?
How would one legislate that before it happens? The law doesn't prevent trees from falling it just assigns liability
I think Anglo countries are a lot more litigious than civil law countries

>>1433786
>Plus, it provides a check on the legislature
This
That's why supreme court rulings are so important

I remember reading a couple years ago the supreme court of Mexico ruled that possession of marijuana for personal use should be a right
But that didn't legalise it. In common law countries that court ruling would be law, and marijuana would become legal

>>1434040

That's an example of the type of judicial overreach that is a danger in a common law system.

>>1434040
It's amazing how willing legislatures are to just ignore constitutions to deal with whatever flavor-of-the-month issue pops up, because their interests are solely to respond to voters (and the media) to get reelected. This is why judicial review for constitutionality is so important, otherwise it's just an aspirational document.

>>1434088
>That's an example of the type of judicial overreach
It's the same way black people and women became eligible to vote
Is that judicial overreach?

>>1434868
This

Post rare law systems

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Guernsey

>Common Law

I DO NOT ENTER JOINDER WITH YOU!

THIS IS THUGGERY!

*sound of taser firing*

URWAAAAAAGGH!

>>1433765
>Common Sense
No legislature can conceive of every scenario and possibility, nor, quite frankly, are legislatures mentally or morally equipped to handle every situation.

>>1434129
>Is that judicial overreach?
Everything is judicial overreach when it affects something, someway that you care about, and you don't like the outcome.

>>1435661
It's only judicial over reach when parliament doesn't like it

>>1433685

Normans were French.

>>1435820
They were Norman, not French

>>1435820
No they were Norman

>>1435860
>>1435931

>speak French
>live in France
>have French names
>be Catholic
>intermarry with French for more than 150 years before 1066
>not French

A rose by any other name my dude.

>>1435970
>>have French names
>william
>french

>>1435989

sure as hell isn't Wilhelm

>>1431639
Where do I read more about the law?
Like roman law, common law, specific legislation and theory and shit.

I think it'd be nice to understand more (in general) about such a relevant topic.

>>1436013
It sure as hell isn't Guillmaaaiirree or whatever retarded name the French gave him

>>1435970
Normans were Nordic

>>1436049
Guillaume i think

>>1436056
I can assure you that William never refered to himself as that

>>1436054

>we wuz nords and shit hail black thor

>>1436066
False
He called himself Guillaume le Conquistador

File: Bayeuxtapestryodowilliamrobert.jpg (4MB, 1584x1345px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1584x1345px

>>1436264
Yeah about that.

>equity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)

>So I heard you like special snowflake judicial systems, here have another!

>>1436337

It's a historical artifact dating from the time that the "Court system" and appealing before the king were two completely separate things, with column A having one set of powers and column B having a totally different one.

>>1434129

In America there were constitutional amendments which guaranteed voting rights to those classes. The individual right to vote did not exist in common law at least until the 19th century. Im not sure of its status in England but in America voting rights are in the domain of constitutional law.

>>1436363
Not him, but you do realize there's no hard divide between "constitutional law" and "common law", right? Take Griswald, you've got constitutional common law right there.

>>1436363
Constitutional law has tons of clauses read into it by supreme court rulings such as gay marriage
That wasn't an amendment or legislation, the court read into the constitution a right that wasn't explicitly stated; gay marriage

>>1436327
The Bayeux tapestry also refers to the Normans as "Franci".

Everyone referred to the Normans simply as "the French" until the English started being butthurt at that in the 20th century and rewriting history.

>>1435989
See >>1433732 for some Norman names.

>>1436524
No that's fine, I agree they were essentially French, but that guy didn't call himself Guillawhatever.

>>1436413
>the court read into the constitution a right that wasn't explicitly stated; gay marriage
Incorrect. The argument went, that the ability to marry was a right inherent among all people, and if marriage was a right, by the due process clause, no state or federal government held the power to make regulations which restricted the people's ability to marry. Which incidentally included marrying someone of the same sex.

>>1436399
>>1436413

When the judicial power is correctly understood, it is contrained by precedent or the text of laws, such as the Constitution. The rule of law depends on the judges restraining their authority to matters addressed by current law. The common law is not correctly understood as a instrument for flexibility, but as a stabilizing force. The common law begins with the principle of stare decisis, not with magna carta or the assizes of Henry ii. It is in essence the idea that a single ruling applies generally to all similar cases. New law is created only to deal with new cases and only through application of old common law principles. It is the exact opposite of the modern idea of law developing as a matter of convention. Blackstone when he defines the common law in contrast to statute law says only those laws which are so ancient that no one can find their origin belong to the common law.

>>1436614
It wasn't just due process, it was also equal protection analysis under the 14th amendment. Also, implying a right that isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution is very much judge-made law; otherwise, we couldn't overturn prior rulings, because that would be the definitive version of the Constitution. Judges reinterpret it to try and suit different times, same way the common law developed over centuries.

>>1436413
>>1436614
>>1436654

Kennedy was playing extremely loosely with the law. He failed apply doctrines in a way thats rooted in the cases. Nobody knows how the legal mechanisms provided for a right of gay marriage because the opinion is legal nonsense.

>>1436614
>Incorrect.
No that's literally how court rulings "read in" legislation

>>1433599
These cases fall under general civil responsability, as municipalities are moral persons. They have general (jurisprudential) and statuticial sources for their different obligations. Municipal right is a bit of a mess, because Quebec has federal law applied to governing bodies. To add a precision to what anon said higher, there is civil law only in the province jusdiriction, or if you prefer, constitutional competence. So because municipalities are the province's creature, they ar under both Common law and procincial civil law.

>>1436873
Well yeah criminal law is federal so any common law there would apply to Quebec

>>1436873
>So because municipalities are the province's creature [creation]
Ohhh this is a good point

>>1436969
Of course, you are absolutely right. But pertaining to the municipalities, I was talking about the whole of administrative law. I should have been more precise.

>>1437000
If I may add something else, this has effects on prescription cases and othe procedural issues like The audite alteram partem set of rules rules in municipal ho are not civil tribunals but administrative ones.

>>1437000
Oh I see what you mean now. Municipalities are treated like an individual entity in the civil code

In common law it's the same I believe. Isn't it true Quebec has a lot of consumer protection laws?

>>1437021
I hate my phone, it is very aggravating trying to type in english and being autocorrected to a fuck up.

>>1437025
Oh yes, the Quebec goverment is much prone to trying to legislate in every commercial realities where there is or may be a situational inequality, from information disclosure to one-sided contractual negotiation such as adhesion contracts (think telecoms and bank). Which is funny because both telecoms and banks are under federal law. Otherwise, the government is prone to activism and general infantilisation of the consumers, which is a often a burden disguised as a blessing. Quebcers in general are very pro-state's regulations and there is more bureaucrats than entrepreneurs. We have a feench expression for nanny state, its gouvernemaman.

File: Screenshot_2016-07-19-22-23-26.png (289KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1080x1920px

>>1437026
You can change the language

>>1437058
>gouvernemaman
Hahaha this is great

>>1437068
Nice, thx anon.

>>1435820
Normans were Francophone Norsemen

>>1436337
That isn't quite how it works. It works alongside the common law system. Traditionally..

>court would make a harsh judgement using previously established case law that would end up in an unfair result
>claimant appeals to the king or his representative the chancellor
>court uses system of equity to vary the result and make it more fair

>>1438151
The purpose of common law is to keep civil matters out of the kings hands

>>1433774
Interested in this anon's question, even if completely ignorant about particulars.

>>1433774
>ADA
American disability act? In Canada I'm not sure if there is law about that but coincidentally I'm trying to get accommodations to write the LSAT because I have a visual memory deficit

>>1437025
>Quebec has a lot of consumer protection
In civil code yes
How does the common law protect consumers? Consumers need to get fucked over first before law is made?

>>1438717
You do realize that common law countries have civil statutes too, right?

>>1438741
One I can think of in Ontario is a ban on cigarette advertisements and the requirement of cigarette packs to have warning labels

This actually went to the supreme court over freedom of expression and the tobacco companies lost

Recently in Quebec however the tobacco companies were sued for knowingly selling an addictive product which causes harm, under some consumer protection clause in the civil code, and the tobacco companies lost

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/quebec-court-orders-tobacco-firms-to-put-up-1-billion-security-for-victims/article27013473/

In Ontario (common law district) a civil claim like that would be totally unprecedented and would set a huge precedent if tobacco companies lost

>>1438778

So, because one particular district doesn't have a particular statute on the books, it means that no common law countries anywhere have statutes?

I've been doing at least a little looking into that anon's question about the ADA, and just look at the life cycle of it.

>Congress makes statute
>Cases are litigated on the basis of it.
>Some of them go up to SCOTUS
>SCOTUS makes a number of rulings, either to clarify some terms or to make it in line with other caselaw.
>Congress doesn't like what SCOTUS has done with the act and re-drafts it to be more precise with what they had intended (and more protective of disabled people vis a vis businesses)

I really enjoyed this thread

>>1438792
>So, because one particular district doesn't have a particular statute on the books, it means that no common law countries anywhere have statutes?
I never implied that
I was pointing out that without a statute many civil claims particularly the example I gave, would be difficult or impossible to pursue

>>1438830
When this board first came out I looked forward to law threads

I highly recommend reading this brief (it's pretty long) on the Sovereign Citizen/Freemen on the Land etc. movements.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html

>Mr. Meads clearly subscribes to the OPCA concept that he has two aspects, what I later discuss as the ‘double/split person’ concept. The German folk term “doppelganger”, a kind of paranormal double, is a useful concept to describe this curious duality. Mr. Meads labels one aspect as a “person” or “corporate entity” while the other is his “flesh and blood” form.

>>1438980
tl;Dr: me

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd051013/jack.pdf

THIS SHOULD BE ESSENTIAL READING FOR ENGLISH & WELSH COMMON LAW

WITH BREXIT, THE SITUATION HAS CHANGED A BIT.

>>1439296
Is this relevant for all common law, like in Canada per se?

>>1439554

No

>>1439296
I knew it was going to be AG v Jackson before I even opened it, spooky.

>>1440061
Oh right I forgot you have parliamentary supremacy in the UK
In USA it's judicial supremacy and Canada kind of falls in the middle only because our charter of rights includes a notwithstanding clause

I'll explain more about the NWS clause if anybody is interested

Why are Anglos so litigious?

>>1440087
>Oh right I forgot you have parliamentary supremacy in the UK

Well we don't right now. The illusion has taken a severe bashing over the past few decades. Give it a couple of years though.

>>1440281
>Having parliamentary supremacy
>Not passing rights shattering legislation for minorities
Literally why?

>>1440464
That's my point. We don't have it. Parliamentary supremacy hasn't actually existed since we became subordinate to the direct effect of EU legislature as expressed in the case of Van Gend En Loos. There has been a mere pretence under the premise that "oh, well since parliament ALLOWED the EU to override it via direct effect it must be possible to repeal it, so supremacy is preserved". In actual fact parliament has been constrained for years. Immigration targets of tens of thousands were failed and hundreds of thousands turned up. There was no way of stopping many of them due to the direct effect of certain EU treaties and regulations. The UK is fined millions of pounds each time such a thing happens.

>>1440685
>Being a farage cuck

>>1440685
Imo judicial supremacy is a good thing in most cases
UK has terrible privacy laws, in Canada I think pur privacy laws are more strict than the USA
Like drug tests by employers in most circumstances are illegal and when they are conducted they can't identify the people who had drugs in their system

>>1438980

I had to deal with these freemen of tgecland retards when I was doing mortgage litigation. One guy tried to pay off his mortgage and arrears with a handwritten "promissory note" from his legal entity self.

>>1441010
That's ingenious

Any Canadians here?

>>1431795
not a ramble, a very interesting read. posts like these are the reason I enjoy /his/

>>1433638
WE WAZ LAWMAKERS

French judges aka the latin lawmakers ruled

Never again

>>1433151
It's a good balance between individual discretion and reliability.

>>1433151
Muh special rulebook!

>>1440939

Those are just your policy preferences and not the necessary effect of musical supremecy. The American system has rendered far fewer privacy protections by judicial fiat.

>>1442721

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1964/496

>>1431639
Those wigs look absolutely ridiculous.

Are they modelled off JUST memes from the 1700s or something?

>>1442934

The legal right established in Griswold is a right against government not against private persons.

>>1436337
It's not really a separate system of law. It's a branch of common law that covers certain kinds of claims and defenses that are used in ordinary cases.

>>1442721
I'll find some more examples but there are many SCC rulings which favour privacy

>>1442965

That is a recent development.

>>1443022
Law and equity merged hundreds of years ago. How old does something need to be before it's no longer a recent development?

>>1443028

When the English legal history begins with the fall of Rome, developments of the past 150 years are recent.

>>1440685
Parliament was never absolutely sovereign to begin with, see obitur comments in >>1439296
. The tripartite system of government exists to perform checks and balances onto itself. The judiciary monitors the executive via stuff like judicial review and interpret (and in a fair bit of cases qualify and constrain) the will of the legislative. Unfortunately in the UK the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act did quite a bit to kick the judiciary in the balls. If you want to go meta, fucking Dicey said that the parliament is bound by popular resistance of the public. No one is going to be passing laws legislating zero immigration starting from tomorrow, even if the UK is absolutely free of any international obligations that it owes.

Besides, any international agreements (in this case EU law) bind the hands of the parliament by oh-so-little every time, but they do so simply via the principle of consent. The 1972 Communities Act was a willing gesture on behalf of UK's legislative to accept EU law as superb and legislate in accordance to it. Unlike what UKIP would love to have you believe, there is a lot of wriggle room in EU for implementing such laws, e.g. regulating immigration. The most important thing for immigration is pull factors, of which the UK has plenty (growing economy with relatively lax tax laws, English language, freedom to contract, etc). There was excellent opportunity to stem the flow of newly joining EU state nationals by simply forbidding them from entering until a certain period has passed. Under EU law you could block all Poles and Romanians for a decent period of time. UK chose not to. It has been exceptionally lazy with EU jobseekers in particular. Up to 2011 nobody even gave a shit about checking health insurance requirements, which are compulsory under EEA regulations. There was noone monitoring jobseekers (unlike e.g. France who are known for kicking out EU jobseekers after 6 months). IF you want to blame someone, blame your own government.

File: bw.jpg (4KB, 116x175px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 116x175px

> hi my name is Lord Browne-Wilkinson and welcome to me ignoring everything previous judges have said and cementing this decision in a way that will only give you a headache

btw everyone will say Denning was the madman innovator, nobody bats a fucking eyelid when this asshole suddenly decides to overturn 150 years worth of caselaw and then has the fucking balls to say "there is no evidence to the contrary"

>>1443160

I have always understood parliamentary sovereignty as merely the statement that the parliament has the supreme legislative power in Britain. Judges make law but parliament can override it by statute.

In America we inherit what was understood to be the British legislative tradition. International treaties are not binding unless the congress ratifies the treaty and makes it the law of the land. A basic principle of our legislature is that no congress may restrict the lawmaking power of another (except by Constitutional amendment) so it would not be legally possible to surrender regulatory authority to a transnational entity like the eu.

>>1443160
>>1443368

And by the way I think the difference between parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty is a historical difference merely, and not one of substance.

In your history the lawmaking power was surrendered by the king and bestowed to the parliament. In ours the people are said to surrender their natural authorities to the government with the creation of the free American states in a the social compact that are the state and national constitutions.

Common law ensures that two people in similar circumstances get similar treatment under the law at trial, because judges are bound by precedent. You don't have that in civil law.

Your statements are off.

In civil law systems, the written law provides for equal treatment under equal circumstances, as do the ruling of our version of the Supreme court. The lower courts will follow the Supreme Court's rulings. In civil law systems there is more legal certainty and less flexiblility and it is the other way around in common law systems.

So your post was plain wrong.

>>1443476

Meant to quote this guy >>1433786

>>1443476

The difference in a common law system is that a courts ruling is binding for all similar cases under his jurisdiction. Even lower court judges have this authority.

>>1443476

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)

>Unlike common law systems, civil law jurisdictions deal with case law apart from any precedent value. Civil law courts generally decide cases using codal provisions on a case-by-case basis, without reference to other (or even superior) judicial decisions.[10] In actual practice, an increasing degree of precedent is creeping into civil law jurisprudence, and is generally seen in many nations' highest courts.[10] While the typical French-speaking supreme court decision is short, concise and devoid of explanation or justification, in Germanic Europe, the supreme courts can and do tend to write more verbose opinions supported by legal reasoning.[10] A line of similar case decisions, while not precedent per se, constitute jurisprudence constante.[10] While civil law jurisdictions place little reliance on court decisions, they tend to generate a phenomenal number of reported legal opinions.[10] However, this tends to be uncontrolled, since there is no statutory requirement that any case be reported or published in a law report, except for the councils of state and constitutional courts.[10] Except for the highest courts, all publication of legal opinions are unofficial or commercial.[11]

http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/content/legalsystem011.htm

>Despite the efforts of the Dutch Supreme Court to reverse the earlier mentioned development at lower courts, starting a civil procedure in the Netherlands nowadays can indeed be a Russian roulette. This has created a serious problem in Dutch law, although still not everybody agrees.

>>1443524
BTFO

>>1443524
Are you dutch?

>>1443160
>Parliament was never absolutely sovereign to begin with, see obitur comments

Literally just obiter, and judges getting slightly uppity and conceited. In practice sure, they are supposed to be a check and balance, but this isn't the U.S, such a thing is not enshrined in law. In law, legally, Parliament is supposed to be sovereign.

>UK the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act did quite a bit to kick the judiciary in the balls

Yeah there was even somebody complaining in The Times editorial today about the stupid reforms to the position of Lord Chancellor and making it a bitch position in the CRA 2005.

>Dicey said that the parliament is bound by popular resistance of the public

Well of course it is, that's the whole point of democracy. But that isn't recognised in statute or anything like that or even in any common law dicta.

>No one is going to be passing laws legislating zero immigration starting from tomorrow, even if the UK is absolutely free of any international obligations that it owes.

I never suggested that. Public anger would make such a move impossible. The point is that Parliament wouldn't be constrained in law from doing such a thing.

>international agreements (in this case EU law) bind the hands of the parliament by oh-so-little every time

International law is pathetic and isn't worth the paper it is written on. It has no force at all other than that it would cause us to lose face if we did not follow it, e.g. Russia. Really the same could be said of much domestic law too though to be frank.

>1972 Communities Act was a willing gesture on behalf of UK's legislative to accept EU law as superb and legislate in accordance to it

That is a surrender of power, you're arguing that Parliament is sovereign because it could give the power away, but once it has done that its hands are bound until such a day as the ECA 1972 is repealed. It's basically just semantics.

>>1444496
2.

>Unlike what UKIP would love to have you believe, there is a lot of wriggle room in EU for implementing such laws

>implying i'm a fucking UKIP supporter.
And yes, but the EU as an institution (i.e. the Commission, the only part of it that has any real clout at all) is incredibly pro-free movement of people, believing it an essential part of the European project. They don't separate it from the other pillars of the Union (the freedoms set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and so would never legislate against such a thing in any substantial way.

>UK chose not to

Well we were under New Labour, so there's that. One of Tony Blair's speechwriters and key aides said that it had been a deliberate policy of ministers in the year 2000 to allow uncontrolled immigration in order to increase Labour's vote in the major cities. They were useless on it. Somehow even the Tories have been too though, so fuck knows what was going on.

>IF you want to blame someone, blame your own government.

Often their hands are bound, either by EU free movement of people rules, ECHR human rights law or a combination of the two. I'm not saying always, but I myself have sat in on Supreme Court cases where people have been saved from deportation based on absolutely disgraceful reasoning that is dependent on EU treaties.

>>1444496
>International law is pathetic and isn't worth the paper it is written on
This
Internation laws hold no legitimacy
They're only used to stir up the public opinion "omg the gubment violated the international convention of the laws of the sea! "
What's going to happen? You get scolded by bigger countries?

USA, the leader of the free world, has gotten around the Geneva convention since WWII with German "disarmed enemy combatants" in pow camps with no provisions or shelter

>>1445151
Savd