Ethoash wrote: ↑
22 Nov 2019, 16:02
u r one honest guys.. hence i want to ask u this question.. i ask the same question for few participant but i did not get an answer so u r my last chance to give me answer
juhwar went to America to meet with his supporter and collect money or to have face to face meeting it doesnt matter why he went but my question is some "Ethiopians " try to stop him and even prevent him from speaking .. one Ethiopia even show his gun only to end up arrested by police ... now he is in jail...
i dont mind what they do in America ... they were celebrating as if they got victory from stopping Juhwar speaking .. now my question is does qerroo have the same right to stop Dr. Abiy, Dr. birr or any other Amhara party leader from speaking in oromia ... this is the only thing i want to know.. pls be honest and be yourself and answer it to best of your knowledge
do the qeerrro have the right to stop any Amhara from speaking in oromia
I (Sun) am not a politician but yet I think that according to the golden law of precedence the qeerroo may have the right to stop them. The application of precedent relies on reasoning by analogy. Analogies can be neither correct nor incorrect but only more or less persuasive.
The law of precedent contributes predictability to the law because it provides notice of what a person's rights and obligations are in particular circumstances. A person contemplating an action has the ability to know beforehand the legal outcome. It also means that lawyers can give legal advice to clients based on settled rules of law.
The use of precedent also stabilizes the law. Society can expect the law, which organizes social relationships in terms of rights and obligations, to remain relatively stable and coherent through the use of precedent. The need is great in society to rely on legal rules, even if persons disagree with particular ones.
Reliance upon precedent also promotes the expectation that the law is just. The idea that like cases should be treated alike is anchored in the assumption that one person is the legal equal of any other. Thus, persons in similar situations should not be treated differently except for legally relevant and clearly justifiable reasons. Precedent promotes judicial restraint and limits a judge's ability to determine the outcome of a case in a way that he or she might choose if there were no precedent. This function of precedent gives it its moral force.
Precedent also enhances efficiency. Reliance on the accumulation of legal rules helps guide judges in their resolution of legal disputes. If judges had to begin the law anew in each case, they would add more time to the adjudicative process and would duplicate their efforts.
The use of precedent has resulted in the publication of law reports that contain case decisions. Lawyers and judges conduct legal research in these reports seeking precedents. They try to determine whether the facts of the present case precisely match previous cases. If so, the application of legal precedent may be clear. If, however, the facts are not exact, prior cases may be distinguished and their precedents discounted.
Though the application of precedent may appear to be mechanical, a simple means of matching facts and rules, it is a more subjective process. Legal rules, embodied in precedents, are generalizations that accentuate the importance of certain facts and discount or ignore others.
"A healthy and fully functioning society must allocate its resources among a variety of competing interests, all of which are more or less valid but none of which should take precedence over national security." ~Herman Kahn