[superdug]

Who’s historical court would you like to reference? We’ve not been a country for as long as there have been traditions and laws about finance in particular. We fought for independence from a monarchy and its kingdom, not to be free from governance.

[otterley]

We could have started with our own legal decisions without reference to precedent. After all, that's what early English decisions themselves frequently did. They were based on logic, by reference to statutory text, and by weighing the pros and cons of various alternatives, not precedent.

[Dracophoenix]

>After all, that's what early English decisions themselves frequently did.

Not really. What's commonly called English Common Law is itself an Anglo-Saxon bastardization of Norman Law. Even American Law borrows directly from Norman Law in the formers now dwindling but still surviving usage of Latin.

>They were based on logic, by reference to statutory text, and by weighing the pros and cons of various alternatives, not precedent.

While I agree with the premise that is how law should be, that's generally not how it was nor is it so simple to accomplish. A quote to one should remember is that "[A]ny Anglo-American lawyer must cope with a sneaking feeling that there is no such thing as first principles, just one damned case after another."