Jayb,

I have no idea what it is you’re on about in your first two paragraphs, but it looks to me like you’re disgruntled about something because you don’t understand it.

I don’t think you understand precedent fully either. Do you know why it’s used; when it’s used; the different extents to which it can be utilised/applied; when it can be overridden? You sound like you have more of a problem with the adversarial system in general than anything else.

I take it, too, that you don’t know what any of these precedence’s you’ve been referring to are or why they were apparently not useful anymore (other than being old - which isn’t in itself a reason). I can assure you that your issues with precedent are purely ignorance-driven.

I think you’re going to have to expand on what is that you’re trying to say. I don’t know that you’re entirely sure yourself. Your thinking seems a little on the conspiratorial side. It’s as though you think lawyers all put on a show for formality’s sake and then go off to a dark room to smoke cigars and laugh at the rest of us, while watching re-runs of JFK being shot from the grassy knoll with all the climatologists.

You conservatives have invented such a bizarre world for yourselves.

<<What's the Saying, "Justice must be seemed to be done.">>

No it’s, “Justice must be seen to be done.” It can’t just be done.