On 8/4/2019 9:54 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Other option, after reading more thoroughly: I think the later CFJ is
> more
> correct, personally - you could just assume that that one overruled the
> previous and see if anyone *else* wants to CFJ that. Depends on which
> one you (as Officer) think is most correct.
More general reflection - if two CFJs contradict, then the later one is
the "standing/current" interpretation. If the later one improperly
ignored precedent when it was made, then the correct thing (outside the
Motion/Moot window) is to call another CFJ requesting that the third
case overrule the second one. However, if you're happy with/believe the
later one, no CFJ required.
-G.
