Not arbitrarily though. If they are going to choose to ignore precedent then they have to provide a reasonable justification. E.g. the legal precedent is very old and is not fit for purpose in the modern era, or, the specifics of the case are different enough from the specifics of the precedent that It is possible to argue that it does not apply.
It also helped the US supreme court basically doesn’t do its job anymore. Had the justice system worked as intended it would have been quite difficult to justify overturning it. It’s not like anything new had happened or any new evidence had come to light.
indeed! so there must be more to this. So how does it actually work?
A judge can choose to ignore precedent.
Not arbitrarily though. If they are going to choose to ignore precedent then they have to provide a reasonable justification. E.g. the legal precedent is very old and is not fit for purpose in the modern era, or, the specifics of the case are different enough from the specifics of the precedent that It is possible to argue that it does not apply.
Yeah, is that how they overturned roe v wade?
It also helped the US supreme court basically doesn’t do its job anymore. Had the justice system worked as intended it would have been quite difficult to justify overturning it. It’s not like anything new had happened or any new evidence had come to light.