Any leftist Law Students here?

Suing for monetary compensation for like negligence

Lmao sorry I meant more along the lines of what kind of answer are you looking for? Are you asking if tort law favors proles or bourgs?

Oh yeah, I mean are torts a net good in that they help proles against bourg or does it mostly help bourg?

Its proletariat. Contract law is bourgeoisie

Well in law school you learn all kinds of things that could be useful now or in the post-revolution world

And your educated is only helped further if you take some sort of art course because you learn

Atm it mostly helps the bourg because

Well, who can afford the best lawyer?

Granted there are many instances where no amount of money is going to protect you if you fuck up and owe someone else something.

Well money is capitalist, but you could argue the principal of "returned to the position before you got screwed over" is neutral to economics.

I'm a law student and tbh it feels like I lose or betray my beliefs no matter what I do wth my degree at this point.

Obviously porky has a slight advantage when it comes to hiring lawyers and having the money to pay them, but other than that I don't see it at necessarily favouring one or the other. And tort cases are generally good at keeping porky in check (obviously not as much as we'd like, but since we're in a capitalist society I have to relish the minor victories)

For example, if an employee fucks up and someone gets hurt it's the employer that's liable for damages (this doctrine has a specific name, can't think of it right now)

It gets more complicated when it comes to things like products liability and medical malpractice, but intentional torts and especially negligence cases provide some redress from the excesses of capitalism.

change your major to political science or philosophy :^)

Nigga a JD ain't a major

Lol American education

In other countries doesn't a Law degree take the same amount of time as an American Law degree?

You just can start "Law" as an undergrad but you can't practice as a barrister in England until after 7 years of education or 6.

Yeah, judge-made law is a spook - it's undogmatic and unscientific. Judges are interpreteurs, not legislators.

Except isn't most of tort law a result of common law rather than statute?

Without the judicial system interpreting laws Porky would have free reign over the judicial system through the legislature.

I'm doing an Arts/Law Double degree and philosophy is my major for Arts.

Even when judges simply interpret the law they are still creating common law in ruling that legislation should be interpreted in a certain way.

Honestly part of the reason Lenin fucked up is that he made no effort to have an independent judiciary.

The concept of a party unabridged by law is dangerous and lead to Uncle Joe.

wow "comrade"kane still posts here? I thought that guy went full atlright potato already.

Anyways, most lawyers are destined to become petitebourgs. Fuck em.

Yes. They aren't saying we should get rid of things like tort law, contracts, property law, etc, just the ability for judges to create law at the bench. If I'm understanding them correctly, he'd rather have a completely civil law system.

Getting rid of common law won't prevent judges from interpreting law, just from them making it up on the spot

to be fair, common law is one of those things where precedent is highly valued so it's not like the common law is changing all of the time. But it's slow-to-change nature is just another reason why a completely civil system is better: I'd rather have legislators who can respond to changes in society faster

COMMON LAW IS JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION.

No it isn't. Common law has a very specific meaning: it's judge-made law originating in England that's been handed down through the centuries while slowly being modified.

What do you think judges are making law about? They are making "law" about how to interpret the law.

The whole point of common law is that when a superior court makes a decision about how to interpret or apply the law that decision is binding on all courts lower in the hierarchy.

I can't tell if you're deliberately trying to troll me, or you're just that dense. In case that it's the latter, let me try to break this down for you the best I can:

(1) No, common law isn't "making law on how to interpret law", it is law in itself. Back in old England, there were no statutes governing things like contracts, torts, or property so judges made up the law on the spot. They would then write down their decisions, and later judges would look them up to see how they applied to the current case. This is the birth of precedent via case law. A popular secondary source of common law is the 'Restatement' series by the ALI, which has been a huge influence on the development of common law in a number of jurisdictions
(2) Contrast this with statutory law, where legislators make the law and compile them into codes. This is how the majority of law is made today and it trumps any common law precedent. Examples of them doing this include adopting the UCC to override common contract law governing commercial goods, or legislators setting standards for medical malpractice claims, tort reform, etc. Hell, nothing would prevent the 49 common law states from adopting the Napoleonic Code tomorrow if they so desired.
(3) Judges interpreting statutes does make precedent and does create case law, but interpretation of statutory codes is in itself not common law. See (1).

Firstly, new common law of the type you describe in point (1) hasn't been created in like +400 years. It existed under what was pretty much a completely different legal and political system.

Secondly, case law and common law are used interchangeably. There is no distinction between the two.

This nigger needs to read a book

Granted, I don't really know how American legal theory works. A lawyer friend of mine told me they pretty much ignore the Doctrine of Precedent. No sure how though

Are you implying legislators aren't relying on total bullshit?

Do you comrades think there is some way to make a separation of powers in a post-revolution society?

Okay, you tell me. What entirely new branch of the law have judges just made up in the last 400 years?

Your friend is full of shit. The doctrine of precedent is the foundation of the entire legal system.

Not true. For example, a lot of our common law standards regarding intentional torts and negligence have only been around since the 19th century. Privacy torts were also invented by judges around this time (although only one of them still has any modern relevance, again, because judges are still able to create and revise common law)

Again, not true. From Black's Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:

tl;dr- they are not synonyms

I'm starting law school this semester. Or, well, I'm European so I'm starting at uni majoring in law.
Though I'll be honest and say that I'm mostly majoring in law due to personal interest in the subject, political considerations come second to interest, I live my life for myself before others.
With that said, I think that law school gives one plenty of skills that are useful for building ones self-theory, and since even an anarchist society will need some rules of governance, skills within the field of codifying rules will be needed.
I'm scared enough of the private sector that I think I'll be striving for a position in academia. Hopefully I'll be able to do research on leftist political theory.

In case the 2nd edition isn't up-to-date enough for you, I pulled out my 9th just for you

still not synonyms

Torts, as a body of law, have been around longer than +400 years. Try again.

ayyyyyyyyyyyyy

IIRC the only torts that have really been around for that long are assault and trespass. Hardly a body of law at this point, as it was more of an extension of property law. It wasn't until the development of negligence in the 19th century that torts really became torts, hell the concept of "torts" as being torts didn't even emerge until 1870.

But please, keep talking out of your ass.

I hope you're not in or planning on going to law school if you can't tell the difference between the two definitions; cause otherwise you're going to have a bad time. Like if you stand up and refer to cases like Griswold or Citizens United as common law you'll be laughed at by your professors and peers kinda bad time.

Let me simplify it in a way that (maybe?) even you can understand: all common law derives from case law, but not all case law is common law.

for real

Keep in mind that only 1% of civil suits ever make it to trial, either because of summary judgment or because porky likes to settle. A lot.

The discovery process is costly af though, which is why there's been a movement to have lawyers appointed to indigent persons for civil suits like they do with criminal law.

While this is correct, I feel a distinction has to be made for Common Law in the Anglo-Saxon sphere, and Common Law in the continental sphere.

Common Law (ius commune) on the continent used to describe law extracted from apostils about Roman law and Canonical law, with judges mostly being interpreteurs and not scholars. This came to an end with the rise of the enlightenment and "natural law", starting more or less from scratch, which resulted in the first comprehensive law codes like the General State Law in Prussia.

With the idea of having a comprehensive law code and the rediscovery of the Corpus Iuris Civilis the continental law we have today was made. The CIC is of uttermost importance when looking at contemporary law, because it was basically ripped off 1:1 and simply given a capitalist "touch" - Roman Law wasn't necesserily capitalist, given it's antique nature and so on.

Roman Law itself is a mixture of code and case law, based up on Digests written by Roman scholars and strong emphasis on a formal process. I would go even that far to say that the formula would sometimes shape the material outcome. The CIC is basically a categorized anthology of selected Digests done after the fall of the Western Roman Empire by Justin of Byzanz in the East.

You also have a more nationalist branch of the so-called Historical School that had some small impacts on the law codes we have by implementing traditions of germanic and slavic people (that almost had no perception of private property), but in the end, this faction would lose to the Roman faction; in commentaries arround 1900 you can read critiques pointing out that this Roman Law will perpetuate a capitalist globalism.

Law, police, military and banking are full of classcucks and there dosn't seem to be an alternative leftist doctrine like there is in tech

Well, you can also lead a Revolution and overthrow bourgeois regime.

Not without a precedent for a Leftist lawyer, to say the least.

There's a lot of liberals in the NLG, but it isn't completely hopeless. First article in the .pdf related.

Hello, all you future liberals.