UN condemns US abortion decision

[jhungary]

You are really a troll.

Case law is in essence a class of law by itself isnt it? When others are referencing to your ruling, it is de facto a Law per se. The judge is de facto making Law.

Case Law is what makes common law different from Civil Law system

Go study.

Wiki

Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is law that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, rather than law based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals. These past decisions are called "case law", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "let the decision stand"—is the principle by which judges are bound to such past decisions, drawing on established judicial authority to formulate their positions.

These judicial interpretations are distinguished from statutory law, which are codes enacted by legislative bodies, and regulatory law, which are established by executive agencies based on statutes.

I don't know which system you are referring to, in the US. IT IS NOT.

Dude, come back 2 steps for a minute, if it is, then 1973 ruling would have been binding, and if so, then we WON'T have this problem now.

Again, case law/precedent is NOT Binding, or else explain to me how the Supreme Court Panel in 2022 can overturn the decision of Supreme Court Panel in 1973 if they are binding? Aren't 1973 decision already a case law with your term??

Dude. You may know something about law, but as I said, YOU DEFINITELY KNOW SHIT about US Law and constitution

 

[Song Hong]

US is biggest common law country. That is why RW become a law and dumping RW become a law.

When RW get dump, all states can enact laws that ban abortion. Isnt this a Law?

You really moron troll.

The American system is a “common law” system, which relies heavily on court precedent in formal adjudications. In our common law system, even when a statute is at issue, judicial determinations in earlier court cases are extremely critical to the court's resolution of the matter before it.

Introduction to the American Legal System | LexisNexis

Read our free Introduction to the American legal system to learn the basics on legal proceedings. This is a great resource for newly admitted and first year law students.

www.lexisnexis.com

 

[jhungary]

US is biggest common law country. That is why RW become a law and dumping RW become a law.

When RW get dump, all states can enact laws that ban abortion. Isnt this a Law?

You really moron troll.

View attachment 857159

The American system is a “common law” system, which relies heavily on court precedent in formal adjudications. In our common law system, even when a statute is at issue, judicial determinations in earlier court cases are extremely critical to the court's resolution of the matter before it.

Introduction to the American Legal System | LexisNexis

Read our free Introduction to the American legal system to learn the basics on legal proceedings. This is a great resource for newly admitted and first year law students.

www.lexisnexis.com

Again, just tell me if SCOTUS make case law and they are here to stay, then why or how the 2022 panel can overturn the 1973 panel, when Roe v Wade not just set the precedent, but also affirmed in 1994?

Dude. I don't really care what you said about Common Law, US Law is BASED ON Common Law, I don't know enough to know the different, but I know what US Law is, and I know sure as hell Case Law/Precedents are not binding in the US, and you are talking about US legal system.

 

[Song Hong]

Again, just tell me if SCOTUS make case law and they are here to stay, then why or how the 2022 panel can overturn the 1973 panel, when Roe v Wade not just set the precedent, but also affirmed in 1994?

Dude. I don't really care what you said about Common Law, US Law is BASED ON Common Law, I don't know enough to know the different, but I know what US Law is, and I know sure as hell Case Law/Precedents are not binding in the US, and you are talking about US legal system.

In common Law system, case law is more a living law and constantly evolving, abet the legal elites guarded zealously against Judicial activism and ESPECIALLY avoid confrontation with congresses.

Judges will always stick to the spirit of congress legislation and not interpret it otherwise even if they do not like it.

When there are elites civil war, you start seeing judges struck down this and that and even firing president. This only happens when judges have strong backers from other elite factions.

****************

It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But it’s inevitable that sometimes, the precedent has to go, and a court has to overrule another court, or even its own decision from an earlier case.

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years, including when it struck down legal segregation

There is value in observing legal precedent, but sometimes circumstances, logic or judges’ views determine it’s time to overturn it.

theconversation.com

 

[jhungary]

In common Law system, case law is more a living law and constantly evolving, abet the legal elites guarded zealously against Judicial activism and ESPECIALLY avoid confrontation with congresses.

Judges will always stick to the spirit of congress legislation and not interpret it otherwise even if they do not like it.

When there are elites civil war, you start seeing judges struck down this and that and even firing president. This only happens when judges have strong backers from other elite factions.

****************

It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But it’s inevitable that sometimes, the precedent has to go, and a court has to overrule another court, or even its own decision from an earlier case.

The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years, including when it struck down legal segregation

There is value in observing legal precedent, but sometimes circumstances, logic or judges’ views determine it’s time to overturn it.

theconversation.com

So you say 1973 Supreme Court panel are not judge? Or their decision is not setting a precedent or is a case law??

Again, otherwise how the 2022 panel can overturn that "Case Law", if you will, set by the 1973 panel?

This is a very simple question.

 

[Song Hong]

So you say 1973 Supreme Court panel are not judge? Or their decision is not setting a precedent or is a case law??

Again, otherwise how the 2022 panel can overturn that "Case Law", if you will, set by the 1973 panel?

This is a very simple question.

How many times I should say Common Law is a living a evolving law system whereby Judge can strike down their precedence and make new rulings. Now you see in RW.

Before ok to abort in US. Now can be not OK in some states.

This is not unlike today Congress make one law and next day Congress make another to wipe the earlier one out.

 

[jhungary]

How many times I should say Common Law is a living a evolving law system whereby Judge can strike down their precedence and make new rulings. Now you see in RW.

Before ok to abort in US. Now can be not OK in some states.

then as I said, Precedent would not be the same as law. And you were wrong about SCOTUS making law.

 

[Song Hong]

then as I said, Precedent would not be the same as law. And you were wrong about SCOTUS making law.

Hey bro get a lfie.

A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "to stand in the-things-that-have-been-decided"). Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of delegated legislation) in UK parlance – or regulatory law (in US parlance).

Precedent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[jhungary]

Hey bro get a lfie.

A precedent is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive without going to courts for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common-law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis (a Latin phrase with the literal meaning of "to stand in the-things-that-have-been-decided"). Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law (that is, statutes and codes enacted by legislative bodies) and subordinate legislation (that is, regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies, in the form of delegated legislation) in UK parlance – or regulatory law (in US parlance).

Precedent - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Dude, you are talking about UK, we are talking about US.

If Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law, then how 2022 panel can overturn 1973 panel on Row v Wade, WITHOUT PREJUDICE no less.

You keep dancing around the same issue, and use some other country standard and talk about it as in it fit the US. Without even realise that if what you said was true, then there will not be the constitutional issue regarding the Roe v Wade in the first place.

Dude, either go study some US law or go explain to me how they can be overturned if judge ruling are on equal footing and would become law, otherwise I am not longer interested in circle jerk with you. Because we will just be going around and around in the same issue, and I have said what I want to say.

 

[Song Hong]

Dude, you are talking about UK, we are talking about US.

If Common-law precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law, then how 2022 panel can overturn 1973 panel on Row v Wade, WITHOUT PREJUDICE no less.

You keep dancing around the same issue, and use some other country standard and talk about it as in it fit the US. Without even realise that if what you said was true, then there will not be the constitutional issue regarding the Roe v Wade in the first place.

Dude, either go study some US law or go explain to me how they can be overturned if judge ruling are on equal footing and would become law, otherwise I am not longer interested in circle jerk with you. Because we will just be going around and around in the same issue, and I have said what I want to say.

Bye Dude.. enjoy

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

My stance on the issue is clear, I have write it down twice in this thread.

As I said, this is more of a constitutional crisis than people can't kill their pre-born baby. I agree SCOTUS ruling on overturning Dobbs v Jackson Women Health. I see abortion is a choice, as in you CHOOSE to do it, it is not a given right for you to do it. Which mean if you want one, and your state does not allow one, then you are more than welcome to leave that state and move to another to get one.

But Roe v Wade itself is a precedent, it is a judgment from a case that was heard and tried, SCOTUS cannot just say "Oh I don't think this is guaranteed by Constitution" and ignore the case that had already judge and tried. That is the entire basis of our Jurisprudence. Overturn Roe v Wade, but send it back to Texas Supreme Court or Federal Court to see if the judgement is correct, that is the way to go, not just drop it without prejudice.

You are missing the point. In states like Maryland you can kill the baby within 28 days after birth with no charges. We are not talking about killing the baby in the womb but killing after birth.

 

[jhungary]

You are missing the point. In states like Maryland you can kill the baby within 28 days after birth with no charges. We are not talking about killing the baby in the womb but killing after birth.

That's another issue. That's euthanasia

I mean I have no opinion on that, unless I have had a 28 days old baby who I know will not make it into first year and every day he is alive is like torture, I will not be able to tell you whether I support killing my 28 days old child or not.

I will and did euthanasia one of my newborn cat because of a congenital heart deform tho.

 

[Abdul Rehman Majeed]

That's another issue. That's euthanasia

I mean I have no opinion on that, unless I have had a 28 days old baby who I know will not make it into first year and every day he is alive is like torture, I will not be able to tell you whether I support killing my 28 days old child or not.

I will and did euthanasia one of my newborn cat because of a congenital heart deform tho.

I think all Anglo saxon Nazis beleive in Eugenics and imrpoving Racial superiority. Hilter was not an aberration but represents the mainstream thought of the Anglo saxon Nazis.

 

[jhungary]

I think all Anglo saxon Nazis beleive in Eugenics and imrpoving Racial superiority. Hilter was not an aberration but represents the mainstream thought of the Anglo saxon Nazis.

What's that have to do with anything?

I am not talking about euthanasia based on race, the article is not talking about euthanasia based on race.

Do you have problem with race? I mean, seeing you constantly bring up the topic..

 

[Song Hong]

I bet many of these pro choice women are big slut who fk non stop with 100 men. Now they have trouble.