On Dec 6, 2007 2:19 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, I've wondered this about "precedent" for a while. Statement S > is only TRUE if A and B and C are all true. A judge's arguments finds > that A is true, B is true, but C is false, so S is false. > > Alternative interpretations: > > 1. All the arguments are part of the judge's precedent, and should > be part of future judgements to the extent that they are relevant (in > future cases where C is true, A and B don't have to be reconsidered). > > 2. Since finding C false was sufficient to find S false, all the > arguments concerning A and B are meaningless, and not part of > precedent. > > I've almost always read past precedents and respected their arguments > as a whole along the lines of #1, because going through stepwise and > accepting (or at least considering) each argument in turn prevents > needing a long series of CFJs each time there's a question of this > type, although this tradition in me is from a time before linked CFJs. > > Opinions? > #1 seems the most logical, and yet it makes a valid case for the elimination of stare decisis. Who wants to review the past X years of case history to determine if a fragment of a judgment somewhere might have bearing on a present-day situation? There should be some sort of expiration on past judgments.
BobTHJ
