[1L]

According to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor case law does not supercede the law itself.

Dude, you don't seem to understand what case law is: in many instances, it IS the law. Most tort law is the result of case law, not statutes. There are also common law crimes that are enforced independent of state penal codes.

There lies the issue of Stare Decisis that has a sounder meaning of what the real law was intended to be.

What in the hell are you talking about? What is the "real law?"

Boilerplate case law has proven to be inconsistent to what the previous established statutory law was intended to be.

First of all, what is boilerplate case law? Second of all, how do you propose we interpret statutes when the statutory meaning is vague?

O’Connor wrote...

Has aboslutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. What the opinion said was following one line of previous cases was better than following another line of more recent cases. She was arguing for going back to established precedent that was apparantly displaced more recently to the decision in question. But in either case, she was using CASE LAW (whether recent or not) for authority. This isn't an example of what you are talking about.

Consumer Products Safety...

...says what every lawyer who's ever researched a statute already knows. What's your point? All statutory based authority results from the statute itself and then cases interpreting the statute. The statute is never ignored; it is the basis for the cases that interpret it.

I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. If you do, you aren't communicating it very well, as you points here make little sense.

[goldilucky]

The problem with case law is that every judge has been applying their own "intrepretation" of what they "think" the original statute language was meant to be. Judges are supposed to be observing and enforcing exisiting statutory laws, not dictating them from the bench.

If the judge "feels" the statute is "vague" then, it appears the judge is not abiding in spirit of the originally established law but instead is practicing a form of judicial activism by changing the originally established law and setting case law as "precedent" over existing law. Once this pattern of establishing "precedent" over existing law takes place, you no longer have a court system that enforces laws but instead believes that what comes out of their mouths is the law. And that's nuts!!!!! That's called a dictatorship. That has never been the function of any judge.

For example: look at our immigration laws. Why aren't the existing immigration laws being enforced in our courts? I'll tell you exactly why. It is because the judges and other inter-governmental agencies (INS, FBI) choose to ignore existing laws and/or replace them with new laws to suit their own political agendas. That is the problem. We are becoming a nation under anarchy.

And then look at how the Ninth Circus intreprets the Second Amendment and the Pledge of Allegiance under God. Absolutely nuts!!