Are you more like Civil or Common Law?
Common Law as precedent matters, especially when it comes to social issues.
Common law is crap. Look at our country today. Some shitty podunk judge from Seattle thinks he can legislate from his bench.
Only the Supreme Court should be able to make sweeping changes to interpretation, but unfortunately this is how our system works, and I can't think of a way to fix that.
>>71415272
Precedent literally only exists where there are gaps in the legislation. There's nothing stopping you codifying law to cover areas more effectively
>>71415339
That's the problem.
You know what the most abused law in the United States is? I'll give you a hint.
"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Only a fucking judge could possibly go through such humongous fucking mental gymnastics to think that law was ever meant to be interpreted in more than one way.
Just need a few nutcases as judges and your whole common law system will take a dive.
See: USA
>>71415376
most of the time it's legislative fault for writing down the law like shit
are you ok Portugal?
>>71415253
Yet Civil law is a written system, judges interpretations can substantially changes the view and the application of a law.
>>71415446
Most bills are written like shit, and there isn't really a whole lot Congress can do about that--that's how the game gets played. But when they try to play their stupid mind games on something as simple and basic as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you already know that your system is crap.
>>71415495
Well, yeah, I agree that every part has his responsability in the mess that the judicial system is..
>>71415339
>Precedent literally only exists where there are gaps in the legislation
In Spain judges can cover the gaps with their decissions using the analogy with other laws.
I live by the Law of the Bushknife.
>>71415537
wew lad