So they examined judges in a lab. I examine what goes on in practice. Judges at a lower level in the UK regularly dismiss common law arguments BUT in the higher courts, and especially in the Supreme court, the judges follow precedent. That is a fact that can be researched. You might ask why that is. My opinion is that those in the Supreme court are at the top of their profession. They cannot go any higher so they are free of any ambition to cosy up to the blackmail offered by the establishment who control the promotion of judges. The only incentive in the Supreme court is that their decisions will go down in history and most men and women like to think that when dead they will go down in history as honest decent people. That said the UK Supreme court has found a way to avoid hearing cases that might embarrass the establishment. The Judges pass the control of the first steps in presenting a case to the Supreme court to secretaries who constantly return paperwork over trifling or supposed errors so that judges never see the cases that would cause problems for the establishment. Just one example in the UK. Check out the Supreme court rule 54 regarding habeas corpus and compare with the rule 87 of the lower court rules. That highlights the corruption that is hidden.
One give-away is the word "code". If that appears in the names of statutes then you are generally dealing with a civil law mindset because the idea is that a statute encompasses all possible manifestations of the conflicts dealt with in the law, and then it is on the judges to fit particular cases into particular boxes. Under common law, the basic rule is that similar cases must be decided in similar ways. There are fewer boxes but intellectual/legal space within the boxes to be more analog rather than digital. To say that the USA is a common law jurisdiction is a gross simplification given California - the largest state in the Union by population - and her civil code with almost 10,000 sections. (It's less than that but that's how the numbering system is set up, and those who set it up wanted to leave a lot of room to regulate and micromanage through further legislation).
@@JohnSmith-rv6nf But codes and case decisions are "interpreted" by judges in either system, which is a powerful tool that relates back to the action on the ground rather than public whim or ivory tower idealism.
Grossly misleading, There are fundamental differences in terms of concrete standards of living, freedom , economic efficiency ,and most importantly the rule of law can hardly be said to exist in civil law based systems. The legislature has effectively no bounds of transgressions it cannot undertake
When you write that the rule of law can hardly be said to exist in civil law based systems, is that what you really meant ? Because if we take your words at face value, they are palpable nonsense. I hope you find time to respond, because this is something that has interested me ever since I got my diploma in law at Strasbourg Uni the year after I graduated in law from the LSE in London, so I have formal study to call on.
@@guywilletts2804 I suspect that they either miswrote or don't know WTF they are writing about. It depends who is writing the laws (legislators) , how they are chosen, who is interpreting the law (judges) and how they are chosen and the ethos imbued in both those choices and interpretations. I'm Canadian and I live in a common law country. . .except for Quebec. They maintain their status as a civil law jurisdiction because the policy of the British Empire at the time was to leave legal and social structures in place. Fast forward to today and I would ask if anyone can provide an example where justice under Quebec law (Lower Canada) would have been fundamentally different that justice under Ontario law (Upper Canada). (and then trace that back to those structures rather than some human failing in the chain of events).
Lying is a sin. Bearing a false witness, whivh you did after you mentioned a globe, which does not exist. Basically you are a civilian not using a common sense.
Flat earth , round earth , square earth , I doubt you own a space rocket , so you know as much as the next idiot , but I would agree the earth is flat or bigger as we have the alaska treatie ( think about the words extra terrestrial and all the fires through out history and / or book burnings , all since the 1940s , , , its like how does rocket gas or the sun burn without air in space , why does the wind change direction , why does the big dipper stay in same position , how does the moon cause waves in the sea and can't influence a small puddle or a pond , why is there a giant foot called the heel stone near stone henge ... if they were being honest there wouldn't be all these questions 😂
Yes! Some phonies go to the other extreme - that of over-analysing - Their comments and criticism may rela te very directly to some technical point - may be quite logical within a narrow compass - but they are engaged in a deliberate attempt to avoid discussing some central question. (viz So-called ‘post-modern’ rhetoric)
So they examined judges in a lab. I examine what goes on in practice. Judges at a lower level in the UK regularly dismiss common law arguments BUT in the higher courts, and especially in the Supreme court, the judges follow precedent. That is a fact that can be researched. You might ask why that is. My opinion is that those in the Supreme court are at the top of their profession. They cannot go any higher so they are free of any ambition to cosy up to the blackmail offered by the establishment who control the promotion of judges. The only incentive in the Supreme court is that their decisions will go down in history and most men and women like to think that when dead they will go down in history as honest decent people. That said the UK Supreme court has found a way to avoid hearing cases that might embarrass the establishment. The Judges pass the control of the first steps in presenting a case to the Supreme court to secretaries who constantly return paperwork over trifling or supposed errors so that judges never see the cases that would cause problems for the establishment. Just one example in the UK. Check out the Supreme court rule 54 regarding habeas corpus and compare with the rule 87 of the lower court rules. That highlights the corruption that is hidden.
One give-away is the word "code". If that appears in the names of statutes then you are generally dealing with a civil law mindset because the idea is that a statute encompasses all possible manifestations of the conflicts dealt with in the law, and then it is on the judges to fit particular cases into particular boxes. Under common law, the basic rule is that similar cases must be decided in similar ways. There are fewer boxes but intellectual/legal space within the boxes to be more analog rather than digital.
To say that the USA is a common law jurisdiction is a gross simplification given California - the largest state in the Union by population - and her civil code with almost 10,000 sections. (It's less than that but that's how the numbering system is set up, and those who set it up wanted to leave a lot of room to regulate and micromanage through further legislation).
Common law allows the people to persuade the independent judiciary to their will whereas statute law without a method to amend it is simply tyranny
Codes are amended in civil law countries by the Legislative Branch, not the Judicial Branch.
@@JohnSmith-rv6nf But codes and case decisions are "interpreted" by judges in either system, which is a powerful tool that relates back to the action on the ground rather than public whim or ivory tower idealism.
@@JohnSmith-rv6nfKaye Collado is not speaking clearly
👍
Grossly misleading, There are fundamental differences in terms of concrete standards of living, freedom , economic efficiency ,and most importantly the rule of law can hardly be said to exist in civil law based systems. The legislature has effectively no bounds of transgressions it cannot undertake
When you write that the rule of law can hardly be said to exist in civil law based systems, is that what you really meant ? Because if we take your words at face value, they are palpable nonsense.
I hope you find time to respond, because this is something that has interested me ever since I got my diploma in law at Strasbourg Uni the year after I graduated in law from the LSE in London, so I have formal study to call on.
@@guywilletts2804🙌🙌👍
@@guywilletts2804Mike drop….
Have you taken the BAR Association oath @@guywilletts2804?
@@guywilletts2804 I suspect that they either miswrote or don't know WTF they are writing about. It depends who is writing the laws (legislators) , how they are chosen, who is interpreting the law (judges) and how they are chosen and the ethos imbued in both those choices and interpretations.
I'm Canadian and I live in a common law country. . .except for Quebec. They maintain their status as a civil law jurisdiction because the policy of the British Empire at the time was to leave legal and social structures in place. Fast forward to today and I would ask if anyone can provide an example where justice under Quebec law (Lower Canada) would have been fundamentally different that justice under Ontario law (Upper Canada). (and then trace that back to those structures rather than some human failing in the chain of events).
Lying is a sin. Bearing a false witness, whivh you did after you mentioned a globe, which does not exist. Basically you are a civilian not using a common sense.
Flat earth , round earth , square earth , I doubt you own a space rocket , so you know as much as the next idiot , but I would agree the earth is flat or bigger as we have the alaska treatie ( think about the words extra terrestrial and all the fires through out history and / or book burnings , all since the 1940s , , , its like how does rocket gas or the sun burn without air in space , why does the wind change direction , why does the big dipper stay in same position , how does the moon cause waves in the sea and can't influence a small puddle or a pond , why is there a giant foot called the heel stone near stone henge ... if they were being honest there wouldn't be all these questions 😂
First observation ....the professor was using the Freemason symbolism with his hsnds. 🤡🤡🤡
Professes hes a pro cheater
what a waste of time, very talkative without even going to point, dislike
Yes!
Some phonies go to the other extreme - that of over-analysing - Their comments and criticism may rela
te very directly to some technical point - may be quite logical within a narrow compass - but they are engaged in a deliberate attempt to avoid discussing some central question. (viz So-called ‘post-modern’ rhetoric)
F Harvard