Question

Should U.S. courts continue to adhere to this common law principle, given that our government now regulates so many areas by statute?

Answer 1

U.S. courts should continue to adhere to the common law principle of stare decisis, despite increased government regulation through statutes. Precedent-based decisions provide consistency, certainty, and stability in law and constitutional interpretation.

Step-by-step explanation:

Yes, U.S. courts should continue to adhere to the common law principle of stare decisis, despite increased government regulation through statutes. Stare decisis is crucial in the U.S. common law system as it provides consistency, certainty, and stability in law and constitutional interpretation. Precedent-based decisions contribute to the legitimacy and functionality of the court system. While government regulations may cover many areas, the courts still play a vital role in interpreting those regulations and ensuring proper application.

Answer 2

The court should stick to statutory language. These days common law is being turned into statutory law.

Step-by-step explanation:

The U.S. legal system were set up based on the common law, which adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle is known as stare decisis. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered the question, the same question in other cases must draw out from the same court or lower court the same response in that jurisdiction.

Stare decisis is a doctrine which has always been a major part of the common law, court should follow precedents when they established clearly, expected under compelling reasons. The doctrine of stare decisis will remain valid even more common law is being turned into statutory law. After all, statutes have to be interpreted by the courts.

There is certainly less common law governing like environmental law than there was 100 years ago. The federal and state governments are increasingly regulating the aspects of commercial transaction between merchants and consumers, when disputes arise may be the courts should stick to statutory language.