On Dec 6, 2007 4:19 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?
I think it is worthy of accepting the reasoning of the preceeding judge. In non-game settings (such as the US Supreme Court), the folks writing opinions often differ over time and circumstances exactly how they write decisions. In some cases, I've read opinions which, paraphrased and adjusted for your example, would read "In order for S, A, B, and C must be true. C is false, so S is false. There is no need to examine A and B at this time." This is often used in controversial cases where they do not wish to take a strong stand on some underlying issue represented by A or B. A classic example is the Supreme Court deciding that there was no need to address whether or not the recitation of the pledge of allegiance, with an "under god" clause, was a violation of the separation of church and state because the petitioner didn't have legal standing to raise the case. In other cases, I've read opinions, which would read "Despite the fact that A and B are both true, C is false, and therefore S is false". Usually, A and B are things which there isn't any real controversy over them being true or not, so there isn't much import in affirming them. I've seen cases where the judges, emphatically state "A is false, B is false, and C is false, so S is false". This is usually done in cases where they want to definitively forgo any attempt to bring the issue up to the court again because of a change in state of one of the issues. All of the issues would have to be materially different before they would consider it. So I would tend to put precedential weight behind whatever the Judge chose to rule on. > > -Goethe > > > >
