Clarification: When I meant choosing statutory law over common law, I meant pure common law.
I can see arguments for both sides. For instance: judge made law is not law based on the will of the people. But, can't you just have representatives create statutes to amend judge made law, as a check and not create preemptive statutes.
My main argument against statutory law is that it is political and so tends to go towards the extremes. See: law like three strikes, high minimum sentences, gay marriage.
So tell me if you please, when and why did we choose one over the other?
Respectfully, I don't think you have full understanding of the difference here.
A) Statutory Law: a body of statutes, codes, and rules written and officiated by a legislature or government.
B) Common Law (or Case Law): a body of law arising from the outcome of cases or judicial opinions. This law fills in the gaps arising from inadequacies in Statutory law.
For instance:
The CA legislature passes a law forbidding "bad music." Since the law is written by the government, and codified in the American legal system, its STATUTORY LAW.
John gets arrested for playing Lady Gaga in his car.
John thinks that Lady Gaga's new album is awesome, and shouldn't be outlawed, so he sues the United States. A federal Judge agrees that Lady Gaga's album could be considered "good music," and John wins the lawsuit...
The outcome of this Lawsuit is "CASE LAW" or "COMMON LAW," becomes it arises from Judicial opinion. Until challenged, Lady Gaga is now an exception to the "bad music law".
Here, statutory law and case law work in harmony.
But to directly answer your question: Since the United States legal system was set up around the Constitution, Statutory Law has always taken precedence over common law.