Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_j2dg6ql wrote

Reply to comment by exarkann in Court: Abortion doctors can’t be charged under Arizona law by Freexscsa

There's a definite logic. When a state becomes a state you wouldn't want scrap all the laws on the books, then you just need to waste time re-legislating every single law. Surely it's easier to keep all the laws and deal with any that are struck down as they arise. And, as we see in this case, subsequent laws can take precedence over the old laws in cases where there appears to be disagreement.

The issue isn't whether such laws should be valid, but the intent of those who turn to such laws to try to impose their will when they know laws such as these contradict the spirit and/or the letter of current legislation.

292

NotRoryWilliams t1_j2f4s8r wrote

This is the correct answer. And if I recall from law school, the only state that did otherwise was Louisiana and most legal scholars note that the state is kind of an aberration from the rest of the country based on its Napoleonic roots. Napoleon was kind of a weird bureaucratic dictator and liked all laws to be explicitly spelled out in writing; I believe (though I don’t know because I haven’t really researched it) that his code basically disposed with “common law” altogether.

The rest of the US is based on the English common law tradition, where “the law” is a mix of statutes and court precedents. Most states have passed new statutes to cover most situations but still depend on case law to flesh out ambiguities in the statutes, which is basically why courts require trained specialists as lawyers and judges.

41

demarr t1_j2fugps wrote

>trained specialists as lawyers and judges

You be surprised how this isn't a thing in a lot smaller towns and county in the states. Alot of places don't require much to be a judge, some get appointed, some get voted in.

14