root wrote: > CFJ 1684 is a more recent judgment, and so we > should abide by that precedent rather than by the older ones.
Maybe I'm missing something. Isn't the idea of precedent that judges should be guided by past judgments, and where two independent judgments conflict, a higher court takes up the issue to resolve the conflicting decisions? In any case, there's nothing in the rules to imply later or earlier judgments have primacy. BobTHJ wrote: > Are we to go back and rewrite history, declaring that > the various partnerships were never able to register? Or are > partnerships no longer persons from this point on? Are our judgments Platonic (the first interpretation) or pragmatic (the second)? I thought the Agoran consensus was Platonic, except in specifically pragmatic instances (e.g. the "cutoff for challenges"). Going fully pragmatic would require judicial reform. -Goethe
