Post #9025 by WatchingTheHerd on the US Policy board

Pause to imagine what posts would you want to read here from others. It will likely be kinder, or involve original research with data, or be detailed and thorough, or all of the above. In response, aim to write your own posts in such a way. This will systemically produce the most valuable boards.

- Manlobbi

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21)

Prev | Next

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 4

they're not generally supposed to, and not often asked to, blaze a whole lot of new legal trails.

It makes sense that a first tier court would not be the preferred venue to alter or outright reverse prior precedent. Stare decisis and all. I didn't know there were unwritten rules that first tier courts were expected to shy away from being first to establish precedent for new, unseen combinations of facts, however obvious. Seems like a practice that puts the appearance of judicial stability ahead of actual justice. Especially when it delays justice for the ultimate winner, presuming they have the financial means to continue through multiple appeals.

WTH

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (21)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.