>land of the free

Literally what

>>72603588
The Ethiopian government was spying on an activist (who became an American citizen) in the US. A court just ruled it was legal for Ethiopia to spy on this guy.

>>72603635
To be fair, we spy on and kill american citizens in other countries, which is apparently okay if it's done remotely with a drone.

>>72603515

>what is common law

It'll never survive appeal

>>72603847
>what is common law
Just as ridiculous as imperial units.

>>72603861

t. Boot licker

>>72603861
To be honest, I don't understand how a legal system can work without precedent. Basically, some dipshit in the lowest court can decide whatever he wants, and if you don't have money to go all the way, you just have to accept it.

>>72603515

This is nothing new. This is the entire reason the Five Eyes even exists.

They make little placating laws about the government not being allowed to spy on it's own citizens without cause. Then that country just issues any secret spying cases to a different member because nothing says GCHQ can't spy on Canadians, or CSIS on Australians. Gather the info, hand it back to the home country freely due to Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreements and all it well for those governments trying to spy on their own citizens.

>>72603902
It's simple. There are no laws that aren't written down.
This is especially true for criminal law, as you can't get punished for anything that isn't codified.

Contract law on the other hand is defined very broadly, to allow both parties to make their own agreements. Within set limitations that shift the burden of proof.

>>72603902

Judges only set precedent when no other relevant statues or precedant already exists. Also applying for an appeal isnt very expensive

>>72603902
It's even funnier that the American supreme court is politically colored.

>>72603975
>Judges only set precedent when no other relevant statues or precedant already exists.
Every single case that happens forms precedent. They don't have a "setting precedent" watermark for their judgments.

>>72603958
>It's simple. There are no laws that aren't written down.
I'm not talking about that. How can you know what an act says from one day to the next if previous approaches to statutory interpretation can't be relied on?

>>72604016

What I'm saying as that judges are bound to follow already existing precedant and statues first and foremost.

>>72604016
In Dutch law previous cases do form a precedent, especially from higher courts. They just don't hold the same weight because technically judges don't have to follow each others decision, but they usually do.

So you can use reason to interpret something, expert opinions from professors, the intention of the law maker or just use a grammatical interpretation.

All Dutch laws can be found online. Just like the political debates from when the law was introduced. So you can just read up what the idea behind the law was.

>>72604170
>Just like the political debates from when the law was introduced.
Funnily enough, these are admissible in the UK, but not in Ireland, because the legislature is not necessarily of one mind when they vote and might vote for it based on different interpretations of the text.

>>72604192
If you have no amateurish jury, but only legal experts in court, there is no reason to declare any form of argument inadmissible. Because judges can easily put it in the right context and properly weigh the argument. Regardless of what you bring in.

>>72604269
Becoming a judge is a 10 year study here (4 years of university where you need high grades + 6 years of post-master education).

If you still can't weigh an argument then..

>>72604269
>>72604321

You're weird, but I'll answer anyway.

First, you seem under the illusion that most cases are criminal cases, which is not true, so jumping to the 'jury' as some kind of issue is senseless.

Second,
>amateurish jury
Juries are by definition amateur.

>here is no reason to declare any form of argument inadmissible
>Because judges can easily put it in the right context and properly weigh the argument
>If you still can't weigh an argument then..
I'll restate it in terms that accord with your autism. The court considered legislative debates and assigned them zero value.

Fuck, I thought the Dutch were supposed to be cool. You might as well be a Kraut.

>>72603999

There is no court on Earth that isn't. Only in wishy washy cartoon dream land exists people with 0 political bias.

File: image.jpg (34KB, 460x288px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 460x288px

>there are people who actually thing civil law is superior
>there are people with weak and inexperienced judiciaries who are unable to deliver just results because they're not supposed to look beyond the four corners of an act
>there are people who get inconsistent results across similar cases because precedents aren't binding
>there are people who think common law jurisdictions actually have unwritten criminal offences

And my favourite
>there are literally countries who have subordinated their own constitution to a supranational constitution (ex. Netherlands to EU) - the most clear showing of a surrendering of their national sovereignty as a nation state

*tips denning*

>>72604376
If you make a good argument the judge will go with you here.
So it would be a bit odd if my arguments would hold value, but the arguments of someone else wouldn't.

>>72604424
Here a law is constitutional by definition..

The parliament proposes a law. But the senate's only role is to check if a proposed law is constitutional or not.
If a law passes both houses it is constitutional.

>>72604478
Wait what? That can't be right. The whole governmental purpose of the judiciary is to ensure that the legislative/executive branches of government don't act beyond their Constitutional mandate. And they do this by considering constitutional challenges to statutes and striking down laws which interfere with the fundamental rights and jurisdictions set out in the Constitution. This should be the same everywhere (except literal dictatorships like China where the Court doesn't have the right to overturn CPC mandate)

>>72604431
If all the Dutch are as autismal as you, I can see why they're suited to a civil law system.

>>72604424
Denning was based.

>get sent to France to build a bridge in WW2
>finish and bridge immediately gets bombed
>start building bridge again right away

>>72604527
>The constitutionality of Acts of Parliament and Treaties shall not be reviewed by the courts.
http://www.dutchcivillaw.com/legislation/constitution066.htm

Because then they'd put themselves on the seat of the senate.

>>72604478
>>72604565
That's lunacy. You have people who are elected by elected politicians, who may have no legal training or experience whatsoever, determining the constitutionality of legislation?

Nehterlands really needs to get it's house in order. Literally.

>>72604613
Well, that's what I think of the American Supreme Court. Or juries.

>>72604478
lol what. That's fucking ludicrous.

You guys need to get your shit in order.

>>72604643
>that's what I think of the American Supreme Court.
SCOTUS is comprised of actual lawyers and has judicial review powers, though.

What do lawyers even do in civil law jurisdictions?

Here, if I want to argue a simple commercial dispute, I have arguments based in contract law (judge made, with statute), tort law (almost all judge made), trust law (judge made), restitution, equity (judge made), other civil statutes, constitution (both jurisdictional (ex. Fed/province) and human rights (Charter)). Along with a body of precedent cases which can be followed or distinguished.

It seems like over there you just argue what the statute says and maybe discuss interpretation, then bring up past cases in case the five-year-call you've named a judge wants more reading.

Or is it more complex than that?

>>72604527
Judges can render a law ineffective though. Because they decide if a law is applicable in a specific situation.

Until 3 years ago the Netherlands had blasphemy laws. But it was impossible to prove in court that the person actually intended to insult God himself. So you couldn't get convicted for it.

If judges find a law unreasonable in your situation they don't have to apply it in that specific case.

Civil court is usually just an argument over damages.

>>72603515
After the whole NSA thing, how on earth can anyone still call America the land of the free?

>>72604848
>Implying anywhere in the world is free

If you want total freedom go live totally off the grid in the middle of bumfuck nowhere mountains of Bhutan.

Our freedom is centered around how many individual civil liberties we have as compared to the majority of the world.

>>72604421
>Only in wishy washy cartoon dream land exists people with 0 political bias.
You're delusional, burger.
Take off the proxy.

>>72604841
That sounds like a constitutional crisis.

>>72604841
Wilders was also convicted for hate speech against Moroccans. But he got sentenced with no punishment.

>>72604869
>Implying
Don't put words in my mouth, you fat cunt. It's not your mouth and these words aren't burgers.
>Our freedom is centered around how many individual civil liberties we have as compared to the majority of the world.
Is this a joke? This has to be a joke. Your nation does not value individual human life.
The audacity of you arrogant yet completely obvious to the rest of the world pricks is astounding at times.

>>72604846
No it isn't. You literally argue everything you can and once you get to remedies, damages are only one of the options available (others being equitable remedies, constructive trusts, unjust enrichment, etc.)

t. Civil litigator.

>>72604936
>An aussie doesn't understand what "individual civil liberties" means
really makes you think

>>72604936
Say's the Emu slave. And you did in fact make that implication asshat.

We value or citizens rights above all. And we grant our citizens as much freedom as possible to say, believe in whatever the fuck they want. Unlike your silly big island.
Go have some Chinese kid tell you he's not afraid of you or something you Aussie cunt.

>>72604922
That's another thing about Euro courts that differs enormously.

In any Anglo country, a politicians speech on immigration policy would be right smack at the centre of needing freedom of speech protection and the court would never allow for a conviction there.

>>72604882

>My judges are literal robots programmed by an incorporeal entity and given no beliefs on any matter in existence. The do not feel anything on any subject.

Well they say you learn something new every day, and if there's one thing I learned tonight, it's that the Netherlands has the worst judiciary system on Earth.

My grandfather really shouldn't have contributed to liberating you "people".

>>72604807
First you look at the contract and the facts of the case.
Then you grab a civil code and see if there is a violation of any law.
Then you start to interpret every word, based on case law, the ideas behind the law, expert opinions or by a grammatical interpretation.
Often there are also laws that define certain words or have exception clauses or reasonability clauses.

And then two lawyers play a word game. But considering laws can be quite broad there can be a lot to argue about.
For example if the law says you have to pay for the damages when there is failure to perform, unless.. then that covers a broad array of things.

I studied tax law and here people literally argue about anything. If the law says there is an tax cut on educational books then you have comic publishers like Disney argue Donald Ducks are educational books. And you have people with three pages of writings claim it's an educational book. And so on.

>>72605100
>it's that the Netherlands has the worst judiciary system on Earth.
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I should've done my final year thesis on how awful it is; it'd have been a slam-dunk.

>>72605109
There is also a lot to argue about facts, intent and guilt.

>>72604997
Absolute freedom of speech only exists here inside of parliament.
When you step outside of parliament the freedom of speech ends.

Wilders joked he might have to just quote what he said inside of parliament in the future.

>>72605263
>Absolute freedom of speech only exists here inside of parliament.
>When you step outside of parliament the freedom of speech ends.
Yeah, we know that. We disagree with it. Simply stating a fact doesn't assuage our criticism.

>>72604527
If the King, the ministers (government), the parliament (people), senate (states / provinces) all agree surely it cannot be unconstitutional.

Then you also have the police that has to enforce it, who are run by the mayors.
And judges who check individual cases.

The legislative branch and the executive branch can be quite distinct.
In Amsterdam for example certain drug laws aren't enforced because the mayor thinks its bullshit. And he's in charge of the police.

>>72605464
And the mayor of Rotterdam can send special units to deport or kill Turkish ministers lol.

>>72603723
while fucking horrid that is surprisingly equitable

why doesn't my gay government spy on expats