Blackstone on precedent and interpretation

An interesting line from Blackstone's letters:

"Precedents are Laws interpreted by Usage; & if there has been no Interpretation, we must resort to the Law itself."

"Letter 18. To Randle Wilbraham, 9 January 1753 [draft]," in The Letters of Sir William Blackstone 1744–1780, at 26 (W. R. Prest ed. 2006) (Selden Society Supplementary Series vol. 14).

Comments

[DaivdBehar]

Precedent. Do not wash hands between deliveries to reduce the incidence of puerperal fever.

Do not use a washing machine. Smash your wet clothes on rocks at the river, using river water.

Do not flush. Poop into holes in the ground, outdoors, in winter in Minnesota.

This is the stupidest occupation in the country. It is far more toxic than organized crime.

[DaivdBehar]

Do not update the criminal law and procedure to address the 100 million internet crimes, you lawyer dumbasses. Continue to prosecute 10% of felonies.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not an originalist.

Question: Is an originalist Court bound by decisions of an earlier originalist Court? Or is each generation of judges free to make their own determinations as to original meaning?

[Area Man]

No en banc court is ever bound by its earlier decisions.

[Sarcastr0]

I think he means under that jurisprudential model, not formally.

[Stephen Lathrop]

captcrisis — I am already fed up getting told by right wingers, Josh Blackman and his fans, that Dobbs and Bruen now govern decision-making going forward. Originalist precedents must, it seems to me, imply unfettered originalist critiques going forward. Ad infinitum, I guess.

Critics of those recent decisions will note that the historical component one might expect to find at their foundations was flagrantly distorted by results-first bogus claims about the past. Even without open-ended originalism, that should do the work of undermining those cases as precedents. What legal method and principles to apply to cases which will replace them seems destined to become a contested question.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"if there has been no Interpretation, we must resort to the Law itself."

Horrors!

[DaivdBehar]

Rhoid. I pray you do not get the monkey. Be careful when you go out there, Honey. It can be very painful in some places on the body.

[DaivdBehar]

That the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principle of the English constitution. William Blackstone

Blackstone, ultimate toady and obsequious beggar to the vile King. Is that whom you want to quote, a big government, little tyrant lawyer scumbag?

Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. William Blackstone

Do you know why that is, lawyers? You don't? Because criminals are lawyer clients and generate worthless toxic lawyer jobs, you rent seeking Ivy indoctrinated lawyer scumbags. What you don't say or don't even know: your ten criminals will commit 200 felonies a year, a quarter of them, violent. For your lousy lawyer dumbass job, 2000 people will suffer, including multiple murder victims and their families.

[DaivdBehar]

The obsequiousness of the scumbag Gladstone was to King George, the one overthrown here during the American Revolution. Lawyer fans of Gladstone are supporting an enemy of our country. This scumbag made compromise impossible. Colonists were just British people abroad. He insisted they utterly submit to the superiority of the Parliament. The beef was over a tax increase, to pay for the military to protect the colonists against the Indians. This authoritarian scumbag, dumbass lawyer made negotiations and compromise impossible. Thousands died, and the giant lawyer mistake of the Revolution proceeded. The American Revolution caused the Civil War, another huge dumbass lawyer catastrophe.