Mr John-in-Kansas, well put and stated, but again sources are misleading you! First it's "English Common Law" according to them, and second it wasn't and isn't exclusively their's! They inherited their system from Rome. The Romans in their turn got their Laws from another source and so on. So they did not invent Justice either.

Common Law is 'court's precedent'. Ok, but what happens when one crooked judge has a politicians hand in his pocket and his own hand in the state treasury?

IOW Rubbish. Common Law is formed from several sources including relgious, moral, long established tradition and other practices. There IS no legal basis for it. That's the whole point. Priciples established in legislation and court rulings which take substance from it, for whatever reason, are relatively ephemeral. Now if you took a part of the Law of Sumer or Egypt and compared it to today's expression of a similar practice, then I can see why you might be getting confused. But you didn't. So I don't see why you have a problem with the3 biblical root for current common law intead of erroneous "English Common Law" ..which when examined closely BTW isn't really common law. I think when you read enough English Law, common or otherwise, you'll very soon realize it's really Regal, or Royal Law. IOW laws of the Monarchy for the 'people', or in their terminology ' subjects'.