by Kane » Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:54 pm
Yeah, that's what I thought you were saying.
You be crazy yo. Precedent isn't just used as a form of guidance, it's also a form of limitation on an individual judge's powers. Depending on the issue between two parties what would stop judges from crafting new laws altogether if precedent wasn't needed? Think of the appeals courts...on what basis would they examine any judge lower level rulings? Aside from the words of the constitution? There would be no rules, even no penumbras. Past precedent has come to define current conceptions of rights.