US Common Law directly traces its lineage to English Common Law, which in turn has its roots in Anglo-Saxon law. Courts still occasionally cite centuries old English legal cases.
Justice Alito cited the 13th century English legal treatise De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae when he allowed states to ban abortion so I guess it’s pretty inspiring.
Eh the Japanese pretty much imported the BGB wholesale, a metric fuckton of countries have civil and criminal codes that root in either the French or German traditions. Their system is also generally firmly rooted in civil law, that is, precedent is non-binding.
This is mostly a case of politicians not wanting to stir controversy, I think: While most Japanese would be in favour it’s a change and on top of that a change that would really piss off a minority so in the interest of conflict averseness the can is getting kicked down the road.
So same sex marriage bans are unconstitutional, but the marriage unions are still not legally recognized? So close!
Yeah this title is super confusing.
I suspect that the courts decided that the legislature has to create a mechanism to recognize but can no longer block marriages.
IIRC that’s correct. Their paperwork is only strictly defining a man and woman, not just “two persons” or something like that.
Removed by mod
US Common Law directly traces its lineage to English Common Law, which in turn has its roots in Anglo-Saxon law. Courts still occasionally cite centuries old English legal cases.
Removed by mod
Justice Alito cited the 13th century English legal treatise De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae when he allowed states to ban abortion so I guess it’s pretty inspiring.
Source
Removed by mod
Lol so true. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s an almost 800 year old citation being used by the majority opinion of the highest court in the land.
Talk about precedent.
Removed by mod
Eh the Japanese pretty much imported the BGB wholesale, a metric fuckton of countries have civil and criminal codes that root in either the French or German traditions. Their system is also generally firmly rooted in civil law, that is, precedent is non-binding.
This is mostly a case of politicians not wanting to stir controversy, I think: While most Japanese would be in favour it’s a change and on top of that a change that would really piss off a minority so in the interest of conflict averseness the can is getting kicked down the road.