(no subject)
Judicial precedent, as you may or may not know, is when a current case is compared to a similar case or similar cases, where a decision was made. The more similar cases with the same decision, the stronger the answer.
The thing is that prcedent is a load of baloney. It is the duty of each judge to decide on the basis of law, however he or she sees fit. And with the number of laws we have, its an important duty to hold.
For instance, one article I'm reading right now mentions one judge citing ONE decision as precedent, yet when the case moved to a higher court (The Supreme Court, of all things), the opposite decision was made, and yet the first decision was considered precedent.
Ignorant.
The thing is that prcedent is a load of baloney. It is the duty of each judge to decide on the basis of law, however he or she sees fit. And with the number of laws we have, its an important duty to hold.
For instance, one article I'm reading right now mentions one judge citing ONE decision as precedent, yet when the case moved to a higher court (The Supreme Court, of all things), the opposite decision was made, and yet the first decision was considered precedent.
Ignorant.