On Dec 6, 2007 2:40 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > #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.
My opinion on this is that if nobody remembers the precedent, it's no longer relevant. -root
