Doctrine of precedent: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:
A world-view that underpins everything the common [[lawyer]] holds dear: that, as far as makes any difference, there is nothing new under the sun, and if anything transpires to be, one should keep well clear of it.
A world-view that underpins everything the common [[lawyer]] holds dear: that, as far as makes any difference, there is nothing new under the sun, and if anything transpires to be, one should keep well clear of it.


By common myth, this is how the [[common law]] became the thing of many-faceted beauty we know today. No-one mentions the elephant in the room, never mind the fact that there are ''four'' of them, and all perched on top of a stack of turtles. You see, there can’t ''always'' have been a developed body of case law: at some point in its life, every law we know was buried in the marble, and those qualified to opine on it could do nothing more than walk around this great block, with a chisel, scrating their chins. What did the judiciary do in the first case?<ref>THEY MADE IT UP.</ref>
By common myth, this is how the [[common law]] became the thing of many-faceted beauty we know today. No-one mentions the elephant in the room, never mind the fact that there are ''four'' of them, and all perched atop of a stack of turtles. You see, there can’t ''always'' have been a developed body of [[case law]]: at some point in its life, every law; every [[golden thread|golden stream]] running through it was buried deep in a great marble block, and those qualified to opine on it could do no more than walk around it, with a chisel, scratching their chins.  


Outside the great curial chambers of the [[Chancery Division]], the greatest exponent of the [[doctrine of precedent]] is ones [[general counsel]] who, when brought a novel conundrum, will immediately ask, “what have we done before?”
What precedent did the judiciary cite as authority for the very first case?<ref>THEY MADE IT UP.</ref>
 
Outside the great curial chambers of the [[Chancery Division]], the greatest exponent of the [[doctrine of precedent]] is one’s own [[general counsel]] who, when brought a novel conundrum, will immediately ask, “what have we done before?”


The [[doctrine of precedent]] stands in contradistinction to realistic, pragmatic theories of existence which recognise that since, as a brute fact, the class of things that have not yet happened yet is unlimited and, however compendious the class of “previously encountered things under the sun” may be, it is necessarily finite, and that since an infinite number divided by a finite one is still infinite, then managing risk by only doing what you’ve always done isn’t enormously prudent.
The [[doctrine of precedent]] stands in contradistinction to realistic, pragmatic theories of existence which recognise that since, as a brute fact, the class of things that have not yet happened yet is unlimited and, however compendious the class of “previously encountered things under the sun” may be, it is necessarily finite, and that since an infinite number divided by a finite one is still infinite, then managing risk by only doing what you’ve always done isn’t enormously prudent.

Revision as of 17:41, 27 April 2017

A world-view that underpins everything the common lawyer holds dear: that, as far as makes any difference, there is nothing new under the sun, and if anything transpires to be, one should keep well clear of it.

By common myth, this is how the common law became the thing of many-faceted beauty we know today. No-one mentions the elephant in the room, never mind the fact that there are four of them, and all perched atop of a stack of turtles. You see, there can’t always have been a developed body of case law: at some point in its life, every law; every golden stream running through it was buried deep in a great marble block, and those qualified to opine on it could do no more than walk around it, with a chisel, scratching their chins.

What precedent did the judiciary cite as authority for the very first case?[1]

Outside the great curial chambers of the Chancery Division, the greatest exponent of the doctrine of precedent is one’s own general counsel who, when brought a novel conundrum, will immediately ask, “what have we done before?”

The doctrine of precedent stands in contradistinction to realistic, pragmatic theories of existence which recognise that since, as a brute fact, the class of things that have not yet happened yet is unlimited and, however compendious the class of “previously encountered things under the sun” may be, it is necessarily finite, and that since an infinite number divided by a finite one is still infinite, then managing risk by only doing what you’ve always done isn’t enormously prudent.

And there’s not much to be said for closing your stable door once your horse has bolted.

See also

References

  1. THEY MADE IT UP.