Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that A case may be distinguished only if that distinction does not imply that the precedent was wrongly decided.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Common law evolution historically proceeds through 'implicit overruling,' where courts distinguish cases on grounds that logically entail the earlier decision was wrong.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Goodhart's own analysis of ratio decidendi shows that recharacterizing the material facts of a precedent is functionally indistinguishable from judging it wrongly decided.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rule forbidding distinctions that imply error collapses into a prohibition on genuine legal development, which contradicts the acknowledged purpose of case-by-case reasoning.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dworkin's 'law as integrity' permits judges to reinterpret precedents in ways that expose prior decisions as mistaken applications of underlying principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A distinction grounded in a deeper principle can simultaneously justify the new outcome and reveal the precedent's reasoning as flawed without violating stare decisis.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • The basic common law requirement in stare decisis is to treat earlier cases as correctly decided.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.