BobTHJ 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
expirat
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 interpreta
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 prese
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 interpreta
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 sho
5 matches
Mail list logo
