Common law means something far sillier

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #65,076 by mhuber 11/26/02 2:05:47 AM Reply	Common law means something far sillier It means the way things were done in English courts in the 1700's. Really. I'm not kidding. And as far as I can see, there really aren't any better ways to do it. The best means of obtaining justice that have ever been developed are the fossilized barbaric practices of country judges in the homeland of an evil empire during a time of upheaval. As Sister State (from the Church and State class I took in college, presented by a pair of nuns - Sister Church and Sister State - whose real names I cannot recall) put it, any system that makes sense is probably heretical, and almost certainly very bad for the people involved. ---- Whatever
Post #65,098 by ben_tilly 11/26/02 7:29:10 AM Reply	My understanding is that it is more flexible than that More precisely that it is still being laid down whenever a higher court creates precedents indicating which legal theories are and are not to be interpreted as having force. Granted most of the significant features were accreted by the late 1700's, and for the interpretation of the Constitution that part of it has partciular relevance since it frames the context in which the Constitution was written. I will have to track down a lawyer to discuss this with. Possibly at Thanksgiving because then I can get 2 of them to argue with each other... :-) Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #65,133 by boxley 11/26/02 10:44:15 AM Reply	common law was the body of English law at the time the constitutiion was written. American law is precedent based. If there is a prior case that was decided one way future cases will be decided the same way except when a higher court overturns the precedents based on constitutional law. As I explained in my prior post the Jury holds sway both constitutionally and under common law so if "the jury" oblects to the camera, out it goes. If they do not object, then it can stay. That would be the basis of the argument over thanksgiving dinner IMHO thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] GRAYBOAR-Strangleur Extraodinaire "Have Thumbs Will Travel" Customised Asphyxiations No Gullet Too Big, No Weasand Too small My Motto Satisfaction Garoteed, or the Chokes on Me! Eric Flint
Post #65,246 by ben_tilly 11/26/02 7:38:35 PM Reply	We-ell... Considering that there will be two lawyers at Thanksgiving dinner, I think I will be doing more listening than arguing. :-) Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #65,272 by boxley 11/26/02 9:04:53 PM Reply	lawyers are fun to argue with as long as you know a particular subject as well as they do. I used to do legal research before westlaw put me out of business so in some arcane areas Im not too bad. In others I do a sgt schultz. Trick is to know which is which, thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] GRAYBOAR-Strangleur Extraodinaire "Have Thumbs Will Travel" Customised Asphyxiations No Gullet Too Big, No Weasand Too small My Motto Satisfaction Garoteed, or the Chokes on Me! Eric Flint
Post #65,279 by deSitter 11/26/02 9:25:39 PM Reply	Uh huh. -drl
Post #65,280 by ben_tilly 11/26/02 9:27:41 PM Reply	This is true but... If you have two it is more fun to try to get them to argue with each other. :-) Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #65,285 by boxley 11/26/02 10:06:05 PM Reply	that is even more fun :-) will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] GRAYBOAR-Strangleur Extraodinaire "Have Thumbs Will Travel" Customised Asphyxiations No Gullet Too Big, No Weasand Too small My Motto Satisfaction Garoteed, or the Chokes on Me! Eric Flint

Talk about not understanding the POINT of a Jury - (ben_tilly) - (13) - Nov. 25, 2002, 10:22:09 PM EST

for a death penalty case? Tacky! -NT - (Meerkat) - Nov. 25, 2002, 10:28:55 PM EST

I do beleive that the judge is correct - (boxley) - (10) - Nov. 25, 2002, 10:52:17 PM EST

Not under common law - (ben_tilly) - (8) - Nov. 26, 2002, 01:12:01 AM EST

Common law means something far sillier - (mhuber) - (7) - Nov. 26, 2002, 02:05:47 AM EST

My understanding is that it is more flexible than that - (ben_tilly) - (6) - Nov. 26, 2002, 07:29:10 AM EST

common law was the body of English law - (boxley) - (5) - Nov. 26, 2002, 10:44:15 AM EST

We-ell... - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Nov. 26, 2002, 07:38:35 PM EST

lawyers are fun to argue with - (boxley) - (3) - Nov. 26, 2002, 09:04:53 PM EST

Uh huh. -NT - (deSitter) - Nov. 26, 2002, 09:25:39 PM EST

This is true but... - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Nov. 26, 2002, 09:27:41 PM EST

that is even more fun :-) -NT - (boxley) - Nov. 26, 2002, 10:06:05 PM EST

Regardless of whether or not it was correct - (Simon_Jester) - Nov. 26, 2002, 09:27:08 AM EST

I see a very mixed-bag. - (Ashton) - Nov. 25, 2002, 11:29:04 PM EST

iwethey.org

Yes, no, maybe so.
46 ms