Legislating from the bench?

so far as i know, neither yurt nor i is advocating throwing out common law, kilgore.

are you?

__________________
"Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system."- Marcus Tullius Cicero

Ah, I see. He just asks for proof that things he supports are constitutional. That makes quite a bit of sense.

Do you think common law is Constitutional Del?

The manner that laws are construed is the key. A judge doesn't have to legislate, just read the law in a way to fit his decision.

Example:

I once filed for a motion for dismissal supported by the statute of limitations. The statute said the action "must come before the court within ten years."

The complant was filed within ten years but did not go before the court until after ten years.

One judge saw it my way; another did not. One cited a rule of civil procedure that described when "clerk" means "court". One saw it the common sense way, that they didn't make a calendar request in time to actually get it before a judge. The Chief Superior Court Judge won that disagreement between judges.

__________________
And just exactly what is the PURPOSE of that meeting.... do you know? Does anyone know? No, they don't. So there's plenty of reason to be suspicious. - Pale Rider

yes. do you?

edit-yurt's question was not a request for proof of anything-are you a big ray bolger fan, too?

__________________
"Nothing is more unreliable than the populace, nothing more obscure than human intentions, nothing more deceptive than the whole electoral system."- Marcus Tullius Cicero

[quote]let's go down the never ending rabbit hole....

where in the constitution does it give any court the right to make law?/QUOTE]

We don't follow our Constitution very closely anymore. With everything that is going on these days, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't take away the right for women to vote!

__________________

Let me nibble on your neck for just a few moments...

equity alone is not common law....nor is it the power to make "law" it is the power to adjudicate equity

__________________

you get it

__________________

Adjudicating equity creates precedent, which then becomes "law".

I have to admit I'd boot the common law if I had the chance. Not going to happen of course, it's too entrenched and vested interests benefit from it.

And "equity" is all about fairness, isn't it?

__________________
This computer has been drinking...not me.




The best foot goes forward.