The Appeals Act

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Or am I mistaken and civil law countries don't have constitutions, there is no separation of powers but rather fusion of powers, and that the court systems are not independent and can be controlled by the whims of the legislature?

[...]

Whether Talossa should adopt a civil law system is not at all relevant to the question of to what extent, if any, the Ziu can regulate the Uppermost Cort.

Courts are bound by the rule of law like everyone else, and in civil law systems, laws are made by the legislature and only the legislature (there is no stare decisis), thus the laws governing court procedures are necessarily also made by the legislature. Does that constitute a violation of judicial independence in your opinion?

[Viteu]

Or am I mistaken and civil law countries don't have constitutions, there is no separation of powers but rather fusion of powers, and that the court systems are not independent and can be controlled by the whims of the legislature?

[...]

Whether Talossa should adopt a civil law system is not at all relevant to the question of to what extent, if any, the Ziu can regulate the Uppermost Cort.

Courts are bound by the rule of law like everyone else, and in civil law systems, laws are made by the legislature and only the legislature (there is no stare decisis), thus the laws governing court procedures are necessarily also made by the legislature. Does that constitute a violation of judicial independence in your opinion?

But there is jurisprudence constante.

I WILL SCREAM THIS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK--IF YOUR LEGISLATURE CAN ABOLISH YOUR HIGHEST COURT AT THE WHIM OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

Also, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

But there is jurisprudence constante.

Which isn't binding, so it's nowhere near as important.

I WILL SCREAM THIS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK--IF YOUR LEGISLATURE CAN ABOLISH YOUR HIGHEST COURT AT THE WHIM OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

Well I don't know how the UK handles this, but in countries with constitutions the highest court is usually outlined in the constitution, so abolishing it takes more than a simple majority.

I don't know how that's relevant to the topic though. The legislature still has the (exclusive!) power to change civil and criminal procedure codes as it sees fit, just like with all other laws.

Also, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

[Üc R. Tärfă]

I agree 100% with Marcel.

Also, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

The fact that we don't read the Organic Law through the lenses of the US Constitution doesn't mean that we don't read the Organic Law. The world is not composed only of the US and the UK: Supremacy of Parliament in the UK constitution is not the only alternative to the US Constitution.

[Viteu]

*I deleted my prior response because i'm on my phone and confused threads.

But there is jurisprudence constante.

Which isn't binding, so it's nowhere near as important.

But to say precedent has no relevance in civil is nonsense.

I WILL SCREAM THIS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK--IF YOUR LEGISLATURE CAN ABOLISH YOUR HIGHEST COURT AT THE WHIM OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

Well I don't know how the UK handles this, but in countries with constitutions the highest court is usually outlined in the constitution, so abolishing it takes more than a simple majority.

The UK Supreme Court was literally created by statute.

I don't know how that's relevant to the topic though. The legislature still has the (exclusive!) power to change civil and criminal procedure codes as it sees fit, just like with all other laws.

Only if the constitution grants the Legislature the exclusive right to do so.

Show me where in the Org Law the Ziu has the power, let alone exclusice power, to regulate the CpI.

Also, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

Show me where in the Org Law the Ziu has the power to regulate the CpI. 

[Viteu]

I agree 100% with Marcel.

Also, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

The fact that we don't read the Organic Law through the lenses of the US Constitution doesn't mean that we don't read the Organic Law. The world is not composed only of the US and the UK: Supremacy of Parliament in the UK constitution is not the only alternative to the US Constitution.

Org.L.VIII.1 was lifted from US Const. art. III § 1.

Org.L.VIII.2 is a truncated version of US Const. art. III § 2.

The UK and US frameworks are relevant for reasons already discussed.

Again, I prefer reading it through the lens of the Australian constitution because that is its closest analogue. We look to other countries with similar constitution and systems to interpret the org law. I've relied on several other countries (e.g. Australia, Pakistan, India) to interpret the Org Law in cort filings in Talossa.

Either point to the provisions in the Org Law that support your argument, or stop making up new powers for the Ziu. Because absent such provisions, your argument is anathema to civil law systems.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

*I deleted my prior response because i'm on my phone and confused threads.

But there is jurisprudence constante.

Which isn't binding, so it's nowhere near as important.

But to say precedent has no relevance in civil is nonsense.

I WILL SCREAM THIS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK--IF YOUR LEGISLATURE CAN ABOLISH YOUR HIGHEST COURT AT THE WHIM OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

Well I don't know how the UK handles this, but in countries with constitutions the highest court is usually outlined in the constitution, so abolishing it takes more than a simple majority.

The UK Supreme Court was literally created statute.

I'm not british, neither Marcel, so why you said "Your legisalture"? Mine can't, neither Marcel's. We do have indipendent judiciary, we do have separations of powers, our judicial system doesn't work like the american one, our judges doesn't "make" laws or crimes or doesn't "rule" on how the judicial system works (that's up to the legislature).

I don't know how that's relevant to the topic though. The legislature still has the (exclusive!) power to change civil and criminal procedure codes as it sees fit, just like with all other laws.

Unless the constitution grants the Legislature the exclusive right to do so.

I agree 100% with Marcel.

Also, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

The fact that we don't read the Organic Law through the lenses of the US Constitution doesn't mean that we don't read the Organic Law. The world is not composed only of the US and the UK: Supremacy of Parliament in the UK constitution is not the only alternative to the US Constitution.

Org.L.VIII.1 was lifted from US Const. art. III § 1.

So?

Org.L.VIII.2 is a truncated version of US Const. art. III § 2.

So?

Again, I prefer reading it through the lens of the Australian constitution because that is its closest analogue. We look to other countries with similar constitution and systems to interpret the org law. I've relied on several other countries (e.g. Australia, Pakistan, India) to interpret the Org Law in cort filings in Talossa.

Either point to the provisions in the Org Law that support your argument, or stop making up new powers for the Ziu. Because absent such provisions, your argument is anathema to civil law systems.

I'm not sure what you mean by "your argument is anathema to civil law systems". I'd say that your argument just proved what I said in this thread.

[Viteu]

*I deleted my prior response because i'm on my phone and confused threads.

But there is jurisprudence constante.

Which isn't binding, so it's nowhere near as important.

But to say precedent has no relevance in civil is nonsense.

I WILL SCREAM THIS FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE BACK--IF YOUR LEGISLATURE CAN ABOLISH YOUR HIGHEST COURT AT THE WHIM OF A SIMPLE MAJORITY, YOU DO NOT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY.

Well I don't know how the UK handles this, but in countries with constitutions the highest court is usually outlined in the constitution, so abolishing it takes more than a simple majority.

The UK Supreme Court was literally created statute.

I'm not british, neither Marcel, so why you said "Your legisalture"?

Do you speak English? Are you aware of the generic you?

Mine can't, neither Marcel's. We do have indipendent judiciary, we do have separations of powers, our judicial system doesn't work like the american one, our judges doesn't "make" laws or crimes or doesn't "rule" on how the judicial system works (that's up to the legislature).

Again, whether judges can or cannot "make laws" IS NOT RELEVANT.

It amazes me how much Talossans not from the US lecture and admonish Talossans from the US about not knowing how other counties' judicial systems work WHEN THEY THEMSELVES KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE US JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

You people act like the US has absolutely no statutory law and every court is making up new law in every case every minute of every day.

You really do not seem to get it.  But because you're so insistent on constantly bringing up or referencing common law where it is completely irrelevant, I'll break it down for you.

"Common law, also known as case law, is a body of unwritten laws based on legal precedents established by the courts."

"Statutes generally have priority, or take precedence, over case law (judicial decisions)." In other words, the Legislature override the common law by enacting a statute.

"In general, common law is used to fill in gaps when no statutory law applies to a specific situation."

US federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

There is no US federal general common law.

US federal courts cannot create a US federal common law in areas traditionally reserved for state courts. 


US federal common law "exists in two instances: where a federal rule of decision is 'necessary to protect uniquely federal interests' and where 'Congress has given the courts the power to develop substantive law.'"

US federal judges do not make criminal law, and there has been no US federal common law for crimes since 1812.  Only Congress can enact US federal criminal law. 

US federal court decisions interpreting, inter alia, statutes, regulations, or procedure, or filling in statutory gaps, form the basis for US federal common law. 

What remains of the common law can be found in state civil law, also known as statutory law.  For instance, the tort of negligence originated in common law (although many states have codified it into statute).  The concept of legal causation with respect to negligence was developed by case law.  Generally speaking, while state courts can recognize a new cause of action at common law (as opposed to one created by statute), it is rarely done today.  Most of the common law in the US concerns statutory interpretation in specific context.

For example, the most recent common law I dealt with was a decision from a state Supreme Court interpreting an appraisal statute for the purpose of deciding whether appraisal court proceeding adjudicates wrongdoing.

Another example—what US lawyers will look for is a case in which a court has addressed the same law and the same or analogous facts to say, "this is how the court should or must decide."  When I litigated, I found a case where I literally wrote in my brief, "One can simply replace the names of the parties in that matter with those in this one, and the facts are not compromised." The decision I cited was from the appellate court that reviewed orders to the trial court I was in. This made it binding.  In this context, lawyering in the common law system is 90% arguing by analogy or distinguishing cases.

This is it. That is all. It's not glamours. It's not hard to find. It's not difficult. It's not the courts taking on the role of the legislature.

AND NONE OF THIS HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO WHETHER THE ORGANIC LAW GRANTS THE ZIU AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE CpI.

Now, if you REALLLLLY want to get into the weeds, the biggest difference between our systems is not the common law-civil law distinction, which tend produce the same results/decisions, it's the adversarial system v. the inquisitorial system. Like, you treat your judges like investigators and attorneys like assistants.

Really, Talossa does not have this massively developed common law. There's maybe 20 cases, some of which may not even be binding given Organic and statutory changes. So why exactly do you keep using this as an excuse for not understanding our judicial system?

I don't know how that's relevant to the topic though. The legislature still has the (exclusive!) power to change civil and criminal procedure codes as it sees fit, just like with all other laws.

Unless the constitution grants the Legislature the exclusive right to do so.

I agree 100% with Marcel.

Also, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

The fact that we don't read the Organic Law through the lenses of the US Constitution doesn't mean that we don't read the Organic Law. The world is not composed only of the US and the UK: Supremacy of Parliament in the UK constitution is not the only alternative to the US Constitution.

Org.L.VIII.1 was lifted from US Const. art. III § 1.

So?

Org.L.VIII.2 is a truncated version of US Const. art. III § 2.

So?

Don't be glib. The fact that we lifted provisions out of another constitutional document is important to interpretation. But at least I bother to look at the Organic Law and provide the basis for my position.  All you're doing is granting the Ziu extra-Organic authority based on nothing. 

Again, I prefer reading it through the lens of the Australian constitution because that is its closest analogue. We look to other countries with similar constitution and systems to interpret the org law. I've relied on several other countries (e.g. Australia, Pakistan, India) to interpret the Org Law in cort filings in Talossa.

Either point to the provisions in the Org Law that support your argument, or stop making up new powers for the Ziu. Because absent such provisions, your argument is anathema to civil law systems.

I'm not sure what you mean by "your argument is anathema to civil law systems". I'd say that your argument just proved what I said in this thread.

No, it didn't. Your argeement with Marcel that separation of powers doesn't mean that the legislature musn't make laws legsilating court procedures WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO is an anathema to civil law and separation of powers.

YOU STILL HAVE NOT POINTED TO ANY ORGANIC PROVISION TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT.

[Üc R. Tärfă]

Mine can't, neither Marcel's. We do have indipendent judiciary, we do have separations of powers, our judicial system doesn't work like the american one, our judges doesn't "make" laws or crimes or doesn't "rule" on how the judicial system works (that's up to the legislature).

Again, whether judges can or cannot "make laws" IS NOT RELEVANT.

It amazes me how much Talossans not from the US lecture and admonish Talossans from the US about not knowing how other counties' judicial systems work WHEN THEY THEMSELVES KNOW ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE US JUDICIAL SYSTEM.

You people act like the US has absolutely no statutory law and every court is making up new law in every case every minute of every day.

You really do not seem to get it.

Hum... I never said that?

However, case law, legislating from the bench and stare decisis are part of Common Law we don't have it. (And I won't say anything about SCOTUS but I have lot to say about it).
 

AND NONE OF THIS HAS ANY RELEVANCE TO WHETHER THE ORGANIC LAW GRANTS THE ZIU AUTHORITY TO REGULATE THE CpI.

I never said that in this thread?

Really, Talossa does not have this massively developed common law. There's maybe 20 cases, some of which may not even be binding given Organic and statutory changes. So why exactly do you keep using this as an excuse for not understanding our judicial system?

It's not that I don't get it, but that we have different understanding of how a judicial system works.

An example of deficit of knwoledge: none really cared to define in law what is the jeopardy attached, but we have to find out what this means. Double jeopardy, "the high bar of double jeopardy" even in appeals (for example the appeal on the name used in immigration) is something alien to me. Our ne bis in idem starts only for a res iudicata. If I only read the Fifth covenant without knowing what do you mean with double jeopardy, I'd interpet it according to what I naturally understand: res iudicata.

I don't know how that's relevant to the topic though. The legislature still has the (exclusive!) power to change civil and criminal procedure codes as it sees fit, just like with all other laws.

Unless the constitution grants the Legislature the exclusive right to do so.

I agree 100% with Marcel.

Also, the separation of powers is rooted in civil law. I don't know why you lot cannot grasp that the civil law-common law question is just an excuse to not bothering to read the Org Law or understand it.

Separation of powers doesn't mean that the courts are above the law, or that the legislature mustn't make laws legislating court procedures. Again how is this relevant?

I'm not sure what you mean by "your argument is anathema to civil law systems". I'd say that your argument just proved what I said in this thread.

No, it didn't. Your argeement with Marcel that separation of powers doesn't mean that the legislature musn't make laws legsilating court procedures WHEN THE LEGISLATURE HAS NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO is an anathema to civil law and separation of powers.

We were talking about the principle.