Author Topic: The Louisiana Purchase  (Read 1937 times)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 66943
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #15 on: April 19, 2019, 11:19:26 AM »
I have always believed that precedence was a major issue with the judicial system we have. I understand that it arose due to the fact that people wanted consistency in the application of the law, which is not all that bad of a goal, the issue comes though when a court makes a wrong decision which it inevitably will given that we are all human. Once that wrong decision has been made then if you rigidly follow precedent that wrong decision will continue to be until someone comes along that does not care for precedence or cares for it less so. Then you get I what I would argue is something just as bad which is a Judge that only follows precedent when it agrees with their political opinion and they try and use it as a club to get others to agree with them.

That is why I would always advocate for a Judge disregarding precedent and simply looking at the case before them and then finding the right answer, as that is not only the correct way to go about things but then allows for the correction of past wrongs.

I'm not sure what others think of this but when I was thinking about precedence you could perhaps make the argument that it violates equal protection because the first case of a certain type is thoroughly examined while all subsequent cases are treated differently because assuming you followed precedent you'd just see that a similar case has been come up and then automatically go back to whatever the original decision was without actually looking at the case.

And thanks! I'm glad I found this place.
Spot On! And we're glad to have one more critical thinker on the forum.
Feel free to jump into the Poli forum, there is sooo much more to the forum than these specific forums.

By the way, how did you come across this forum, was it referenced or a simple search?
#WWG1WGA

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12996
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #16 on: April 19, 2019, 12:24:18 PM »
I have always believed that precedence was a major issue with the judicial system we have. I understand that it arose due to the fact that people wanted consistency in the application of the law, which is not all that bad of a goal, the issue comes though when a court makes a wrong decision which it inevitably will given that we are all human. Once that wrong decision has been made then if you rigidly follow precedent that wrong decision will continue to be until someone comes along that does not care for precedence or cares for it less so. Then you get I what I would argue is something just as bad which is a Judge that only follows precedent when it agrees with their political opinion and they try and use it as a club to get others to agree with them.

That is why I would always advocate for a Judge disregarding precedent and simply looking at the case before them and then finding the right answer, as that is not only the correct way to go about things but then allows for the correction of past wrongs.

I'm not sure what others think of this but when I was thinking about precedence you could perhaps make the argument that it violates equal protection because the first case of a certain type is thoroughly examined while all subsequent cases are treated differently because assuming you followed precedent you'd just see that a similar case has been come up and then automatically go back to whatever the original decision was without actually looking at the case.

And thanks! I'm glad I found this place.

Welcome. Hope you stick around.

I agree and disagree with you on precedent. I think precedent is a good guide for misguided lawyers and judges, of which we have many. However, each case is different and specific facts in a case should not be dismissed just because of precedent.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

Offline Centinel

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
  • All men are by nature equally free and independent
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2019, 01:33:00 PM »
I just came across it through a google search. I did have to search a few different phrases but eventually I found it, and I definitely will look at that other section. I just started off here since I have such an interest in the constitution.

Going back to precedent though if what you mean by a good guide for lawyers and judges is that you can use past cases as a learning tool then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. I love reading past cases and learning both what is good and what is bad about them. You can also get a lot of good arguments from people who were fighting the same bad ideas in their time that we are fighting today. But that past case should not then be a reason for making a decision in a present case.

My objection is to Judges using other cases to make decisions because what you should be doing is focusing on the facts and specifics at hand and then comparing them to the constitution and making you're decision, as the only thing of relevance in any case is whether or not it is in line with the original public meaning of the words of the constitution and not the opinions of other judges.
We hold these truths to be self evident...

To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay right or justice...

Offline supsalemgr

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12996
  • Gender: Male
Re: The Louisiana Purchase
« Reply #18 on: April 20, 2019, 05:01:30 AM »
I just came across it through a google search. I did have to search a few different phrases but eventually I found it, and I definitely will look at that other section. I just started off here since I have such an interest in the constitution.

Going back to precedent though if what you mean by a good guide for lawyers and judges is that you can use past cases as a learning tool then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. I love reading past cases and learning both what is good and what is bad about them. You can also get a lot of good arguments from people who were fighting the same bad ideas in their time that we are fighting today. But that past case should not then be a reason for making a decision in a present case.

My objection is to Judges using other cases to make decisions because what you should be doing is focusing on the facts and specifics at hand and then comparing them to the constitution and making you're decision, as the only thing of relevance in any case is whether or not it is in line with the original public meaning of the words of the constitution and not the opinions of other judges.

Just a forum tip.

Your post was an obvious response to my post. In those cases, please use the "quote" function in the right hand corner of the post. This will bring up the post and allows one to respond.
"If you can't run with the big dawgs, stay on the porch!"

 

Powered by EzPortal