In the spirit of the judge, I’ve decided to include a bit of obiter to go along with the previous judgment. And for those of you who don’t know what Obiter Dictum is, it’s time to learn!
Obiter Dicta - a remark in passing. Judicial observations that do not form part of the reasoning of a case.
Colloquially, it is either called, “obiter” or sometimes, “dicta”. It is the tool which allows active judges to make persuasive comments on fields of law. It’s detected by characterizing the judge’s reason for deciding (ratio decidendi) and see if that comment in question is relevant. If it’s not relevant to the decision it may be considered obiter, only holding persuasive precedent. If the reason was relevant then it would hold a more powerful, binding precedent.
Ratio Decidendi and Judicial Activism
More powerful than obiter, the ratio decidendi (reason for deciding) holds binding precedent. Essentially, any ruling of law decided as a result of the circumstances of the case become law.
The whole judges making law idea is controversial because at the very heart of the common law is the principle of the separation of powers. This principle watches over the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial arms of government. Ideally, it may be considered the equivalent of “play nice”, although in reality this isn’t always feasible.
Traditionally, it is the role of the legislative to make laws. Legislators can be held accountable for their actions by being voted out during an election. Judges are appointed and are not as closely linked to the public. Ultimately, the public has less direct control over the judicial arm of the government.
When a judge makes a ruling, he has the power to widen or narrow the scope. Those who widen are showing judicial activism because they are taking on an active role of creating law. This is opposed to those who exercise judicial restraint. They are the ones who adopt the traditional role of the judge as an interpreter of the law, not a creator.
Want to learn more? Go to Law School!
On With the Obiter!
Last article’s ruling was regarding the tastiness of Smith’s chips. I think it’s important that I also comment on the tastiness of other new chips in the marketplace. With that segue complete, let’s proceed.
Twisties has come out with a new product to shake up the cheesies market. They’re called Hot Dogs and the novelty of them hasn’t worn off yet.
Touted by Homer Simpson as ‘Delec-ta-ma-ble!’ I can vouch for their quality. They taste the same as you would expect a good cheesie to taste.
The fun and novelty comes from the assembly process. The bag contains quantities of both hot dogs and buns. We were upset to learn that the bag contained 36 more hotdogs than buns. (View scientific proof)
Unfortunately, both taste the same, it might have been nice to have a different flavour for the hot dog.
Assembly is simple and fun.
Philosophising on my place in the evolutionary ladder…
A response to Screwtape’s de-evolution of law studies!
As a world traveller, it is my duty to explore the culture around me and report back. Culture is organic and grows quickly between people, communicating through memes. In exploring and documenting my experiences, trite or otherwise, I am encouraging critical thinking of the ideas around us. This is certainly not limited to converting emotional responses to flavours into scientific evidence of deliciousness.
Since arriving in Australia I have been bombarded with a wealth of flavours that are unattainable in Canada. As a reasonable man, I thought to inform those around me and exercise any relevant duty of care to preserve and emit culture. In the words of a constitutional lawyer, this warranted sufficient connection to my purpose to report about. The law tips are gratis!
- Wormwood
Tags: Australia
