I already have, they are in this thread...and other threads, a quote from lectlaw.com and a video of a Supreme Court Justice, Sonya Sotomaymor and her comments that judges don't make law. <iframe title="YouTube video player" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/g59FBcpYed0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> and from lectlaw.com : LAW Rules established by a governing authority to institute and maintain orderly coexistence. An act of Congress (state legislature) that has been signed by the president (governor) or passed over his veto by Congress. Public bills, when signed, become public laws, and are cited by the letters 'PL' and a hyphenated number. The two digits before the hyphen correspond to the Congress, and the one or more digits after the hyphen refer to the numerical sequence in which the bills were signed by the president during that Congress.
that is not a supreme court justice saying judges dont make law. your definition does not exclude common law. if you do not think judges make law... explain this... Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975), the California Supreme Court adopted the principle of comparative negligence even though the cal civil code adopted contributory negligence. Comparative negligence vs contributory negligence is a major change in tort law.
Judges don't make law, they interpret law. The California Supreme Court looks to the California Constitution and previous case law...they render opinions accordingly...and you don't like it. Still not making a law, just issuing a ruling on an existing law and how to interpret that law. The legislative branch can go back and seek remedy, there is a system...perhaps you have heard of it...it is called checks and balances. Sorry mate, you are wrong on Sotomayor, policy is not making a law...it is interpretation and application of the laws made by someone else...not judges or courts. Sotomayor was asked about the differences between clerking for judges in the federal district courts as opposed to those in federal appeals court. "The Court of Appeals is where policy is made," said Sotomayor, a federal judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. "And I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. I know ⦠I know. (some laughs) I'm not promoting it. I'm not advocating it. I'm ⦠you know. Okay. (more laughs) "Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. It's interpretation. It's application." http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter...aims-supreme-court-nominee-sonia-sotomayor-s/ If you don't understand how a higher court can vacate civil code or interpret it differently than you would...go back to law school.
1. you did not explain what happened in any of the case law I presented to you. you just keep asserting the same words you keep saying as if saying them again makes them true. 2. sotomayor confirms what I told you. I stated the ninth circuit is wacky because they are overturned. Sotomayor explained she was guided by Supreme court precedent when she was on the appellate court. she made the claim she did her job as an appellate judge by following Supreme court law. Appellate judges do their job when they are not overturned. When they are overturned a lot they are making law incorrectly. 3. I also explained Supreme Court augmented their ability to make law by creating the law which allowed them to overrule congress. I gave you marbury vs. madison by the US supreme court.... You show me where in the constitution it says the U.S. supreme court can strike down acts of Congress. 4. The CA supreme court made comparative negligence in Li, the law in CA. there is no argument to the contrary. They over ruled a statute and created new law.
1. You did not demonstrate with your case law that a new law was made. A new law was not made, a ruling and opinion of the existing law was given...the power they have. 2. Sotomayor clearly said judges do not make law. 3. When appellate judges do their job, sometimes they are overturned, sometimes they are not. It all boils down to the opinion of the higher court...but judges and courts do not make law. How many directed quotes do you need to see that confirm this? Marbury vs. Madison did not make a new law, it simply set a precedent for how laws that judges and courts do not make are interpreted by judges and courts. Their ruling stands, but it could be overturned through the process if it was so egregious. 4. The Supreme court made a ruling, a judgment, offered an opinion...none of which constitute making law. Bottom line, you don't like the opinions of some judges and courts. You call it making a new law, when in fact all they do is render an opinion on how a law is to be applied in a case, which sets a standard for future rulings, and their ruling can be nullified by the legislative process with Constitutional amendments.
comparative negligence vs contributory negligence is new law. You probably do not understand the significance, but you would if you owned a car and looked down at your radio as you got hit by someone else who was not paying attention. Saying that a second mortgage may sue for recovery of the note even though it was originated by the same lender as the first... is massively different law. I give you examples you give meaningless words.
bingo.... I did not realize you did not know the definition of law. Definition of LAW 1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : common law http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/law
Not a "new" anything. Just an interpretation. Their right, their job, their duty to evaluate the law (that they did not create) to the case at hand. I repeat, you don't like it...so? Can you show anywhere in the Constitution that would deny the right for a judge or court to think for themselves as to what would be the best way to evaluate a law brought to their attention? My opinion is the framers intentionally left this vague. People have to remember where the framers came from, a country where the King and Pope made law, where there was no recourse for reasonable men to interpret the laws written by men, no redress against the tyranny of kings and popes (yes, the kings were just men, as were the pope...the framers rejected the concept that whatever the pope or king said was divinely inspired by God and law on that basis making their word immutable and the law of the land without reason as the foundation). Constructionists are typically unreasonable men, and typically are fundamental in their religious views as well. They don't like when people actually think for themselves...they like it when they elevate men to Godlike status and follow blindly words written ages ago...