It doesn't matter where our laws against murder were invented originally, historically.
Today in the US they are codified into actual statute.
I have never in my life heard the claim that the codification of law is an attempt to "undermine the judiciary"... after all, statutes passed by democratically elected representatives is the very cornerstone of democratic governance.
I'm genuinely curious, is your perspective something you've come up with on your own? Or did you get it from somewhere else, is there a name or movement behind it?
I've simply never come across the idea that the power of courts should be elevated so far above that of legislatures. (I mean, judicial review is one thing, but that's limited to conflicts between legislation and the constitution.)
It’s a process I’ve seen play out many times in my state. The legislature will pass a bad law. The courts will explain the situation, fix it, and move on.
The legislature then won’t have the votes to pass a contradictory amendment, so they “codify” in a way that leaves something out of context or creates an ambiguity.
Litigants then cite the statute instead of the precedent… even though they legislature never actually changed the law.
Today in the US they are codified into actual statute.
I have never in my life heard the claim that the codification of law is an attempt to "undermine the judiciary"... after all, statutes passed by democratically elected representatives is the very cornerstone of democratic governance.
I'm genuinely curious, is your perspective something you've come up with on your own? Or did you get it from somewhere else, is there a name or movement behind it?
I've simply never come across the idea that the power of courts should be elevated so far above that of legislatures. (I mean, judicial review is one thing, but that's limited to conflicts between legislation and the constitution.)