[annalex]

That is a thought-provoking thread, thanks for the link.

I have a counter-argument.

Consider that the statures are produced by politicians. Here's a breed that does nothing but resorting to the transitory opinion. Whose opinion? The majority's. So, are we better off under transitory opinion of Natural Law as held by students of law, or under transitory opinion of two wolves outvoting a sheep in preparation for dinner?

Is there a natural check to the judges' vanity under customary law? There are two. One is procedure: a judge who overturns a precedent better have all his procedural ducks in a row, or else his reputation would sink. The other, connected to the first, is something analogous to market mechanism operating in jurisprudence. At the root of justice is an agreement by the two parties to submit to a particular court. Well, under common law, there is a choice of venue, since no government is there to make rules pegging litigants to a venue. This creaters a mechanism that bypasses judges known for arbitrariness.

Are we going off topic?

[KC Burke]

Off topic is not a problem as long as no one is posting to this big montster.

Your judges then, are the Philosopher-King of Plato as opposed to corruptible representatives.

I'm afraid that mankind is too dedicated to Participatory modes of government to ever retreat to that playing field.

The real rule for that transitory opinion issue is to restore a widely understood sense of Deliberative Representation as opposed to pliebisitory representation. Burke's speach to the Electors at Bristol, etc. George Will has written some excellent discourse on that as well in Restoration

The more power collected in the Judiciary, the more that avarice and personal whim will alway overwhelm the pride and reputation checks in many holding the office.

As Hayek says above in a number of ways, the variety and complexity of the institutions and forms of law themselves aid in their ability to withstand corruption and personal will.