You're right. Not only do we have to live with the decision of a small group of people (often one person) a long time ago, inevitably decisions are influenced by the particular facts of a case. Indeed, judges don't have the mandate to decide binding points of law, as they only have the power to decide individual cases. Why we then take these interpretations as binding precedent befuddles me.
There comes a point where, "in theory", information is accessible, but the barriers to access are so steep that it really isn't. The insanity of not incorporating amendments into the main body of text, given today's technology, is mind-boggling. Happens not only with the law but a lot of other publicly filed documents. Time and expense aside, you're right in that it opens up the system to abuse.
Slashdot Mirror
You're right. Not only do we have to live with the decision of a small group of people (often one person) a long time ago, inevitably decisions are influenced by the particular facts of a case. Indeed, judges don't have the mandate to decide binding points of law, as they only have the power to decide individual cases. Why we then take these interpretations as binding precedent befuddles me.
There comes a point where, "in theory", information is accessible, but the barriers to access are so steep that it really isn't. The insanity of not incorporating amendments into the main body of text, given today's technology, is mind-boggling. Happens not only with the law but a lot of other publicly filed documents. Time and expense aside, you're right in that it opens up the system to abuse.