Instead of making laws like normal a judge from a hundred years ago gets to be the authority unless yet another judge decides to overrule them and become the new authority???
Instead of making laws like normal a judge from a hundred years ago gets to be the authority unless yet another judge decides to overrule them and become the new authority???
No socialist country has used common law. Common law being dialectical and civil law being idealist might be the mind boggling take I’ve ever seen on this site
I said that inverting base and superstructure is idealism. It is a tautology so it shouldn’t be mind boggling.
I didn’t say that common law is some utopian system of law, or that it is superior to civil law. I only explained why it exists and why it’s not absurd per se.
Since it is a question of separation between legislative and judicial power, the common/civil law divide doesn’t really map to a divide between capitalist and socialist law. Depending on implementation and circumstances it can be good or bad, for example common law can be used either as a tool of judicial reaction against a progressive legislature, or as judicial progress in context of a conservative legislature.