By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Kansas governor signs bill effectively banning Islamic law

noname2200 on 31 May 2012
Adinnieken said:

Common Law is the application of precedent to adjudicate civil and criminal cases.  Precedent isn't law, it's a subjective determination based on an interpretation of the law.  Common Law is not Constitutional, statutory, or civil law.   It is not Kansas State law or US Constitutional law.  Therefore the use of Common Law, a practice going back centuries, would be against Kansas Law.

You have the first part right, and the second part wrong. Your description of common law is correct. It is not in itself a set of laws, merely a theory of judicial guidance. It in no way contradicts state or federal law.  I vageuly understand what you're trying to get at, but the argument doesn't really hold up.

rocketpig said:
homer said:
Good. That's the way it should be.

*pounds face on desk*

But it never was that way in the first place.

And now it double-plus-never shall be! Mwahahahahahahaha!!!

rocketpig said:

Why? Under no circumstances are judges allowed to rule based on foreign law.

Incorrect.

 

Edit: Ah. Partly addressed already. I should refresh the page once and again...



Around the Network
rocketpig on 31 May 2012
noname2200 said:
rocketpig said:

Why? Under no circumstances are judges allowed to rule based on foreign law.

Incorrect.

I later clarified that the Supreme Court has used foreign law to determine the legality of something. Which makes sense, given that they occupy the top of the legal food chain and sometimes, the laws on the books aren't sufficient to make a ruling on a case. If they don't look outside the Constitution when the Constitution doesn't give them the answers they need, what else can they do? Make something up?

Also, I'd like to clarify the difference between "citing", "mentioning", and "ruling". They are very different things. Judges often put crazy shit in their rulings and cite some pretty weird shit. It doesn't necessarily mean they ruled the case based on the crazy shit they added to their memorandums.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

noname2200 on 31 May 2012
rocketpig said:
noname2200 said:
rocketpig said:

Why? Under no circumstances are judges allowed to rule based on foreign law.

Incorrect.

I later clarified that the Supreme Court has used foreign law to determine the legality of something. Which makes sense, given that they occupy the top of the legal food chain and sometimes, the laws on the books aren't sufficient to make a ruling on a case. If they don't look outside the Constitution when the Constitution doesn't give them the answers they need, what else can they do? Make something up?

Yeah, I edited that part a minute ago, but looks like I was too late.

And why not just make something up? That's how the first laws were created!



rocketpig on 31 May 2012
noname2200 said:
And why not just make something up? That's how the first laws were created!

That'd be pretty awesome. The SCOTUS gets a case on foreign trade that the Constitution doesn't fully cover.

As a ruling, they declare July 27th National Turnip Day because Roberts really, really likes turnips. That'd be fucking hilarious.




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/