Posted by
CKHustler on Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:26:09 PM
Why is case law even used for determining current cases? I ask those who think it should be, are you now surrendering that your mind is inferior to those who decided those cases? What is the difference between an appeals court judge ruling one way prior to a supreme court case and the supreme court using the appeals court ruling as a precedent versus the supreme court using a 40 year old case as precedent? Neither of these questions will give answers that are consistent with the view that case law should be used as law. Simply because some judge or bench of judges decided in the past whether a case should fall one way or another, case law dictates that is must be decided using that case rather than the law. As a judge can rule in any fashion they please, as liberal activist judges have shown us for decades, we then become a nation of men and not of laws.
The logic is fairly simple yet powerful minds have chosen not to see it because they know case law allows for the law to be interpreted in any fashion they please. So long as someone back up the line succeeded in getting a judge to rule in error, others can use it to increase the gap between precedent and actual law.
Coming back to my questions above, obviously those who believe in case law do not believe their minds are inferior. Some think it a noble cause to prevent us from reinventing the wheel, but they have failed to see the ramifications of their actions. For the sake of expediency, they forfeit justice. Others are more malicious with an intent on creating an atmosphere where what man says means more than what law dictates. Judges are no longer interpreting the law, but creating it and many, mainly progressives, are constantly pressuring our country in that direction. I ask what the difference is between a 40 year old case and a case just decided in the appeals court. We have long thought of space as 4 dimensions with time being a fourth dimension. So I ask, what is the difference between one dimension being different to another? In one case time is different, in another, location. If that argument is too technical, then what does a judge from 40 years ago have over a judge today? Is he more qualified? More educated? Clearly the total information of the human race is ever increasing, so he cannot know something which eludes us today. Which leads us to a conclusion that using either as a precedent are interchangeable by the logic followed by case law.
Case law slowly erodes a society from within as it puts man in place of law. Sure for awhile the men ruling the country will stay true to their principles, but it only takes one to person who doesn't and the power they wield is much greater due to the ability to literally change the meaning of laws and create those which they choose. By creating a country of men and not laws, the leaders are not bound by the laws, rather the laws are bound by them and a dictatorship/tyranny ensues until justice is restored. Case law creates this atmosphere by building one block on top of another until the law is buried under the decisions of men. Soon precedent simply comes before law and justice breaks down as men rule.
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke