04-29-2020, 09:23 AM
(04-28-2020, 04:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is how it usually works. Once a precedent is set based on a ruling in one specific case with one specific set of facts the argument in appeals after that become "This is why that precedent does not/should not apply to the specific facts in this new case".
Court rulings often narrow or expand precedents without completely overturning them
OK that makes sense. This one I wouldn't have guessed would have gone this way (the verdict one) but I kind of like it when they don't all fall in line with what you would guess. But I guess a true conservative could say "Hey unanimous is our real tradition." Whatever the reason, I like it. I think unanimous is the way it should be.
Sorry for the hijack, Matt.
“History teaches that grave threats to liberty often come in times of urgency, when constitutional rights seem too extravagant to endure.”-Thurgood Marshall
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
