Technically judges do make law... but why do they deny it
Any case law to prove it? - (That they make law)
2006-10-31 17:52:27 · 4 answers · asked by Soggy Biscuits 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They are supposed to interpret the law, however they always seem to end up redefining it.
It's called precedent.
2006-10-31 18:02:00 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Roe v. Wade. Judges 'made' law saying that it was a woman's 'right' to have an abortion - relying on a 'right' to privacy to claim that meant they could do whatever they want in private.
There is no 'right' to kill an unborn child. They just made it up.
The concept of 'precedent' means that if one activist Judge ignores the written law and makes up a law for the sake of getting his personally desired results, then others can use that as a basis for their own rulings. It's a bad precedent for upholding the law.
For example, the Supreme Court's ruling that city governments can take your home and property and give it to a private business that will generate tax revenue - clearly a violation of the Constitution that sets a precedent leading to horrible abuses.
2006-11-01 02:02:52 · answer #2 · answered by speakeasy 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
They clarify laws, they don't make laws. It is true that in a Common Law system (as the US is) case law can be used the same as actual legislation. But, they only make decisions about cases that come before them. They don't raise initiatives.
2006-11-01 02:25:44 · answer #3 · answered by Chris J 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
tech jdueges do not make law....
judges execute law..
legislation make alws.
2006-11-01 01:59:54 · answer #4 · answered by cork 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋