An authority changing its rules or rulings does not in any way diminish its authority or invalidate it - or we would have given up on courts long long ago.
D&D 5E Shield Mastery Feat
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
It's so annoying that I have to log out in order to read posts from people who have blocked me. And, yes, I'm interested in what they have to say.
I have the same problem. Seems I upset ad_hoc and 5ekyu somehow.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Oh it absolutely does diminish the reliability of that authority, which is why the Courts give so much power to precedent. Stare decisis is a top doctrine for the Courts, and cannot be violated without specific good reason (and we didn't get any of those specific good reasons in this change by the way) - it's the very reason why the USSC is binding on lower courts. When is the last time the US Supreme Court did a 180 on a holding within a 3 year period of time? As a 25 year attorney I can't recall it happening in modern times, and I certainly cannot recall it happening with the same exact justices simply changing their minds 3 years later. That would indeed send ripples throughout the legal system if a Justices recent prior ruling would be flipped a few years later by that same justice.
Naw, part of being an authority is the reliability of the rulings as precedent. Without that element a large part of the authority is diminished.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
