Law thread

It'd be case by case as well as using precedents I would imagine

>law thread
this is just going to be case law vs. civil law shitposting all over again

>Civil law

OP here
My province had civil law (Quebec) but we adopted Anglo stuff like juries and coroner inquest
Here spousal support is only paid if the spouse proves they need the income to get by and it isn't indefinite

>muh precedent

>Muh special rule book!

I asked in a previous thread and never got an answer, thought I'd try again.

I have a disability under the ADA. (Would rather not talk about it, but I suppose I can if necessary). I work, and get some "accomodations", mostly in the form of generous telecommuting, to "help" with my disability. They're not really necessary, and I suspect they're in large part to isolate me from the rest of the team.

Is there any way you can challenge the reasonableness of the accomodations? I'm not a lawyer myself, I'm not quite sure I want to go to a lawyer for this, and everything I've been able to look up has all been about either whether or not someone counts as disabled, or whether the accommodations are reasonable. I haven't seen anything about the disabled person trying to break down his own accommodations.

Is it epilepsy or TBI?

Where do you even live OP
you realise laws are not the same in every country?

Given he said ADA I assume the United States

Neither of those.

U.S.A. State of Illinois if it makes a difference, but I wouldn't think so for a federal law.

>Farmer Cleetus stole his neighbour's cow and his cousin John the judge ruled it was okay.
>Stealing cows is now legal

That's not how the common law works senpai. It would still be theft which is codified in most jurisdictions

No
Farmer John steals cows from Cleetus

Judge looks at former cases of farmers stealing shit from each other and determines yes stealing cattle is stealing private property
Cows are now considered private property

Plot-twist: the jury is made up of Bumfucksville's citizens, most of them being related to Farmer Cleetus. They declare him not-guilty and Judge John who doesn't want to go against the grain of his townsfolk agrees.

Cow-less neighbour is now wondering why there isn't a "special rule book"

And filing his appeal. You do realize that trial court decisions aren't controlling to anyone, right?

I'm no expert on disability law, and even if I were I wouldn't give legal advice online because that's a great way to get sued, but I would recommend calling either Neighborhood Legal Services or your nearest law school; they may have a clinic that works on stuff like this, and they could even take your case pro bono.

Sounds then like your complaint is with juries, specificially jury nullification, not the common law.

I have no idea how the system works, I'm just teasing you. On a serious note though, my gf practices law in a common law country and she says it's a little bit bonkers as a system and that civil law is more straightforward.

Hybrid systems have the best of both worlds. In fact, from what I understand most common-law countries have more-or-less hybrid systems to varying extents.

Yeah but juries in common law are much more important than in civil law where they just advise and make sure that the process was above board.

Juries are a traditional part of the common law legal system in Anglo countries, but they have nothing to do with common law legal reasoning.

As said, juries are only used at the trial level and trial court decisions are not controlling upon the courts. Juries are solely fact-finders and evaluators of evidence, they make no decisions concerning what the law is; that is the province of judges.

From what I understand, both systems have hybridized: You do have a good chunk of statutory law in any common law system, and while courts might not HAVE to abide by precedential cases in civil law systems, they often do, if for no other reason than whatever worked for the last guy probably works for them.

Yes but if a jury's decision affects the decision of the judge, isn't the jury then indirectly influencing the law?

That's a good point, I had not thought about the hybridisation on the side of civil law systems.

Theoretically, if you take hybridisation out of it, doesn't the debate boil down to, "who do you prefer setting the laws, an elected group of politicians (parliament) or an non-elected group of learned judges?", with the positives and negatives that each entails? (e.g. MPs are elected but also subject to the whims of the public, judges aren't elected but may be more "objective")

Well, yes, in a technical sense that the judge orders a conviction based on the jury handing down their verdict based on their deliberation of the facts.

However, it is specific to that trial. If a subsequent case comes along with nearly identical facts, but that jury decides to acquit, the judge will sustain the jury's finding of not guilty. Even if it is the same case, but the judge declares a mistrial as to the previous conviction, the findings of fact made by the jury will have no impact on the subsequent retrial. The law remains the same because, again, that is what the judge handles and the lawyers argue over.

>most of them being related to Farmer Cleetus
The defense attorney has to approve every juror
That wouldn't happen

In common law tho anything the supreme court says is LAW
That's not the same in civil code

Hence, hybridized as opposed to being exactly the same.

I see, I'm confused as to at which point the results of the trials become law, but I won't press you further. I'll read about it myself.

Not him, but courts have geographic scope. Generally, it's pyramidal in structure, with lots of little trial courts, fewer appellate courts, and one supreme court at the top.

Court decisions are only binding on lower courts in the same geographic area. So, for instance, a decision made by a New York IAC would be binding on all trial courts in that IAC's territory, but not on other IAC's, let alone a different state or federals. (Note, I just pulled New York out of my ass, I'm not even sure if there are multiple districts for New York IACs) These decisions would remain law for that area until the supreme court in New York (Confusingly called the Court of Appeals) makes a decision on them: They usually like to harmonize law of their IACs.

Okay I see. I suppose that makes the law more representative of the views that the local populace holds, rather than what the country as a whole or the central government thinks. This makes sense because the Continent has a tradition of centralised state power and Anglo countries have a tradition of liberalism (in the original sense of the word).

I don't mind explaining, and I definitely recommend further reading. The best way I can describe it is that the judge is a gatekeeper, and he decides what the law is based upon the decisions of prior courts, especially higher appellate courts.

He then gives instructions to the jury explaining to them what the law is, because that's his decision based upon the arguments by the attorneys (this is obviously based on statutory law and precedent, he can't just decide shooting someone in the head isn't murder). He tells them that they must base their decision on the law, but it is up to them to decide whether to convict or acquit based upon their evaluation of the facts as presented by the attorneys.

Essentially, the law is decided before it gets to the jury. They just evaluate the facts in rendering their decision as to whether those facts are sufficient to convict.

That makes sense, so the jury "basically" decides whether to uphold the law or not in each case?

>He then gives instructions to the jury explaining to them what the law is,
This is the absolute most important part of jury trials

>" decides whether to uphold the law
It's more like
This is the law, this is reasonable doubt

Is this person guilty beyond a reasonable of the law as you understand

>he thinks there aren't a ton of provisions in common law to prevent this

Yes, the jury is actually able to decide to ignore the law if they like; this is called jury nullification, and is very controversial in the US, especially when it is based on race (the most common manner in which it occurs).

For example, if a jury decides not to convict a black defendant who was clearly trafficking drugs because one or more of the jurors believes the drug laws unfairly target black people, that acquittal will be upheld, and judges are not allowed to overturn a finding of not guilty even when it is clear that the decision of the jury was rendered contrary to the law. However, that decision will have no impact on subsequent cases involving the drug laws.

Yes, the defense and prosecution argue vigorously over what the jury instructions should be, because it's so important how the judge will instruct the jury.

So, if in common law systems juries can decide not to uphold the law and in civil law systems judges can decide that the specific case doesn't fall under the remit of a particular law (basically the same thing as not upholding the law, but more laborious), then why do we have these two different systems? What are the merits?

This isn't right.

If there is evidence of jury nullification, a mistrial will be declared.

Any people who know what the words "jury nullification" means aren't allowed to be on a jury.

Well, they evolved out of two very different environments and traditions over around 800 or more years. As said, the common law system tends to be more liberal, while the civil law tradition favors centralized uniform state power. Obviously this tension still exists today, and countries are still very resistant to give up their ancient ways in favor of further harmonization, because these old systems seem natural and just and have sustained their societies for many, many generations.

In Silvertop v. The Stepney Guardians a man trained a parrot to say three times after meals, "Councillor Wart has not washed today." It was held that this was a libel.

Wrong. Double Jeopardy clause prohibits retrial of an accused criminal who is declared not guilty, regardless of how wrong that decision might be. Now, if there was evidence of juror misconduct for a conviction, the judge can declare a mistrial.

People who know about jury nullification are allowed to serve on a jury, but in practice they often don't because if they say they are aware of it, the prosecution will use a peremptory challenge against them. They could raise a challenge for cause, and it is up to the judge whether this is sufficient grounds for dismissal of the juror. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether jurors who know about jury nullification are automatically disqualifies, so the issue remains open to questioning.

Of course, this is in the US, I can't speak to the practice of nullification in other jurisdictions.

Yes, but with provisions.

For starters, the composition and views of appellate judges probably doesn't match the composition and views of the community they're in. And supreme courts of any jurisdiction, state but especially federal, take a dim view to "split" appellate law. SCOTUS has even said in dicta that they consider their primary job to make sure that the various circuit courts are all on the same page, and they hate it when districts disagree on a provision of federal law.

But yes, there is a pretty important splitting of power between the legislature and the judiciary. Although, given the presidential system that exists in the U.S., you don't really have a "the government" in the way you do in most civil countries.

Honestly, for a local vs countrywide divide, you're probably better off looking at the division of powers between state level and federal level government.

My girlfriend is a court reporter
She watches trial all day and we listen to her recordings
Jury instructions are definitely the most important they are also the number one cause of a mistrial

>It was held that this was a libel
This is false
Libel is written

But the parrot was trained to voice the words by rote, with no understanding of the content--like a gramaphone record. In the case of the parrot, it was judged to be like an automaton, and therefore making a libel, not a slander.

Bump

So in this case the judge or jury could decide if repeated words by a parrot are libel or slander
If it happens again then the court could refer to that case

Enlighten me, how could civil law resolve this ?

Juries are the number one cause of a mistrial

that's a cool job tbqh

Yeah it's neat listening to her recordings and reading transcripts is pretty interesting
We fuck while listening to litigation sometimes

your life sounds happy user good job ;_;

>We fuck while listening to litigation sometimes

Tell me more.

Well we were listening to a sexual assault trial and laughing at the witnesses while having sex (it was meme sexual assault, like basically the girl said I didn't say he could finger me"
Sometimes do weird role playing

Juries are retarded
Why not let the coroner do his job without idiots?

Thanks user , we're all going to make it

Why is the 14th amendment specifically the equal protection clause not completely fucking retarded? Because it is completely fucking retarded

The main coroner's inquest I know of is the one from when a RAF Nimrod patrol aircraft blew up in midair(!) in Afghanistan in 2006. The inquest found that the airplane type had "never been airworthy from the first time it was released to the service nearly 40 years ago."

(The explosion was caused, IIRC, because BAE did some upgrades and ended up routing a fuel line vent into the bomb bay and said vent had a heating line running next to it)

Could you elaborate further? I agree that it's a vague phrase, but it's not quite as vague as the Due Process Clause or the Privileges or Immunities Clause.

Where do I get started with law? Any classic books which would be used by first year law majors?

>acknowledges that there exist different groups of people/classes of people yet broad-scope forces all laws to be applied to each of them in the exact same way

?????????????

Also,
>giving non-citizens equal protection under the law

Fucking hell at least change it from "persons" to "lawful residents"

>lawful residents
So tourists shouldn't have protection under the law?

Your post doesn't make sense because you contradict yourself. Are you challenging the reasonableness of the accommodations or not?

I'm not an american lawyer, and you shouldnt take my word for it, but general concepts you wanna keep in mind:
-your exact working conditions
-your exact disability
-the context of how your disability interacts with your ability to work

In summary, stop being a cheapskate and get a lawyer.

How have I contradicted myself?

If you want details, fine. I have Hansen's disease, in permanent remission by CDC standards. I'm not contagious, and I have no lingering effects besides a bit of numbness around the fingertips, feet, and face. The biggest effects on my day to day life are that I need to use an electric shaver, I wear thin gloves most of the time, and I check my hands after I've picked anything up.

Despite that, I'm essentially barred from the office, and given extensive "accommodations" to telecommute, as well as less clear directives not to show up without arranging it well in advance. I'm about 99% sure that my "accommodations" are to keep me out of sight, not to really help my ability to work.

And I'm not actively considering litigation about it, I just wanted someone to point me to a damn case or two to see if this was even a thing you could do, since none the case history I have dug up on my own has had the disabled employee challenging the necessity of the accommodations, nor the employer insisting on their necessity.

>classic books
corpus iuris civilis senpai

>smoking be banned from public buildings
>cellphone use including hands free should be banned while driving
We manage to do this in various US states without the need of coroner's inquests. It's just statistical case studies and people running a bill through the state legislature backed up by said.

I don't see any need to give the power of the entire legislature to seven random guys. In a representative democracy, it's not enough to be a practical idea - the representatives have to be convinced that the people will accept it well enough not to fire them come the next election cycle.

...Which is, of course, why we have these laws in some states but not others, despite them all having seen similar statistics.

Have you tried talking to a social worker? Surely, in order to get on the program, you must have met one. Not very familiar with ADA specifically though.

No, they shouldn't have EQUAL protection. They should definitely have protection of the most important rights but real problem arise when you allow anyone equal protection.

Now that is much clearer. I think you may not be finding guidance because you're framing the issue wrongly, i.e. necessity of accommodation. Try searching for plain-old discrimination cases instead, for example, can an employer keep an employee with a hideous deformity from performing a sales job? Not a close parallel but probably much closer to what a real lawyer would do. Anyway youll probably need to find more evidence for why theyre trying to keep you away from the office, so as to bolster your case of discrimination.

As to your actual prospects of succeeding, i'm not sure. Depends on how diabilith discrimination is litigated in your country and the facts of your case. So for example, you need mych more evidence than what you have now to make a prima facie case.

I'm still waiting user, I even outlived the guy who invented the meme at this point

Hmm, all right. It's just that the stuff they sent me when I joined years ago is slathered in language referencing the ADA, so I was looking there. Thanks for the tip.

Shekel for an ex leper?

Equal protection means simply that the legal rights of persons will be enforced equally.

And those rights are generated in law by legislation if they aren't part of the ancient common law. (It is not the domain of judges to create new rights.)

We avoid the problem of legislating to the detriment of particular groups through the privileges or immunities clause, which in clear language prohibits the legislature from action. Trouble is judges have read this provision out of the Constitutional text, through shitty case law, so later judges tried to fit its effect into the due process and privileges and immunities clause. Constitutional law is a muddled mess, but it's not because the text is unclear. The judges simply aren't careful enough scholars to understand the artful phrases in use.

>scholars to understand the artful phrases in use
Shall not be infringed!

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I don't think you've thought your argument through carefully enough

That doesn't tell what what the right to keep and bear arms is. Its not a right which belongs to the ancient common law so it has to be clarified by statute.

The English version of the right which forms the foundation of our laws makes this perfectly apparent.

>That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law.

>We avoid the problem of legislating to the detriment of particular groups through the privileges or immunities clause, which in clear language prohibits the legislature from action. Trouble is judges have read this provision out of the Constitutional text, through shitty case law, so later judges tried to fit its effect into the due process and privileges and immunities clause.

This is not a view of the Privilges or Immunities Clause that any judge or significant legal scholar has ever put forward. While I agree that the Slaughterhouse cases are a muddled mess, the reasoning you gave has not been advanced for that clause, and sounds like a contorted version of the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause. Can you provide a court decision, or even a law journal article, supporting your interpretation?

I think its unfair to assert that the English right and our right are identical, because they're not.

True, but when you look at the state can, they are based on that language.

Its a matter of plain language. The state legislatures are forbidden from making law which removes the rights of citizenship from any citizen. By logical necessity this means that all citizens have equal legal rights of citizenship. It prevents differential treatment in law, where there exists a legal right against the government.

Can=Constitutions

It was justice Scalia being a tard and taking 200 year old legislation at face value. The concept of a militia is obsolete
Permitting residents to have hand guns and long guns is one thing but the assault weapons ban I think was warranted

That's an interesting theory, but would fail under various canons of statutory construction, as it would render the equal protection clause superfluous, which speaks more directly to the matter of equality before the law by virtue of its own plain language; that clause specifically uses the word "laws". This is likely why the Slaughterhouse cases turned it into a dead letter, because they were very hesitant to discern what those privileges or immunities were.

Personally, my view of the clause is that of Justice Black (an archetypal plain meaning judge) in his dissenting opinion in Adamson v. California, that the clause is intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights against state governments. This does create a basic level equal rights, I agree, but does the EP clause one step better by enumerating various rights that won't be abridged by state governments even if those attempted abridgements would apply equally to all citizens. Conversely, it says nothing about the application of laws which are not "privileges or immunities" to disparate groups.

I think you're pretty fucking retarded

DC v. Hellen didn't affect the assault weapons ban, though, it was specifically the handgun ban that was overturned, along with the trigger lock requirement.

The federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004 because the 1994 assault weapons ban was only supposed to Las 10 years by law absent Congressional renewal. The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of a state or federal assault weapons ban.

>DC v. Heller

>lol the Constitution is centuries old brah it doesn't matter any more
>ignoring the basic fact that the constitution can be amended and the last couple centuries of people haven't done it

People like this, and the "living document" people need to be drowned in bleach.

Normally that would be illegal because they have the right to life, but that was thought up hundreds of years ago and is no longer relevant.

this this this

If you're going for an original intentist style of constitutional understanding; then why aren't you up in arms about how the 2nd has been incorporated to state governments through similar modes of judicial fiat. When it was first written, hell, really until the 1920s or so, nobody thought that any of the bill of rights were supposed to apply to state level governance.

Ergo, any state should be able to ban every gun, bounded only by their own constitutions.