On 27/09/2019 12:53, Incubus wrote:
I don't feel Todal adequately answered your last question, "Or does their
authority make it definitive, with nothing else needed?"

That is exactly the case. People trust in their experience and judgement.


That is the legal principle of precedent.

And that is why if you have a legal case to fight you look up all the
precedents.

And find to your horror that the case you are prosecuting has half a
dozen which bend this way or that. So in the end its always the judges
decision in a non jury setup as to which line of the law he prefers to
take. The best your lawyer can do is dredge up te three that are most
favorable tp you, and if te oppositin are doing tjeur joib, they will
reond the judge of te three that rob you blind.

It is then uo to the judge, having been duly reminded, to ponder over
the merits of each precedent and come up with a judgement.


Years ago I heard that someone I vaguely knew of had skipped bail and
gone abroad, because he had been caught 'in possession' and was up
before a judge, whose daughter had died of a heroin overdose. He had
never been knwon to pass less than maximum sentence on drug cases.

So much for judicial impartiality.



--
"It is an established fact to 97% confidence limits that left wing
conspirators see right wing conspiracies everywhere"