That's kind of the point of a supreme court; the realization that it's impossible to get all of this stuff right in a legislative body and someone has to resolve the conflicts.
The same reason judicial decisions (especially appellate ones) applying those laws are also put in writing, and the same reason that such decisions are binding on lower courts, and considered persuasive though not binding authority for other courts in applying the same law.
Because that's what the courts rule based on, it's just that the initial version of the writing (the legislation) is often ambiguous so the courts add more writing over time.
That's kind of the point of a supreme court; the realization that it's impossible to get all of this stuff right in a legislative body and someone has to resolve the conflicts.
No dude, that's the point of having written laws.
Since Hammurabi.
And when those written laws are unconstitutional? That’s the purpose of the Supreme Court: a check on the legislature and executive branches.
3 replies →
Which invariably need interpretation and evaluation for consistency; hence a court with oversight.
That's... Always been the case?
Why bother putting laws in writing?
> Why bother putting laws in writing?
For reference and consistency.
The same reason judicial decisions (especially appellate ones) applying those laws are also put in writing, and the same reason that such decisions are binding on lower courts, and considered persuasive though not binding authority for other courts in applying the same law.
Because that's what the courts rule based on, it's just that the initial version of the writing (the legislation) is often ambiguous so the courts add more writing over time.
The United States has a common law system, which relies heavily l heavily on court precedent.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/lawschool/pre-law/intro-to-....