General Discussion

Land Shark

(6,346 posts)

24. Not being precedent (if true) only means that same case could be decided either way next time

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 05:07 PM

Dec 2016

You are misunderstanding precedent. There is (binding) precedent and there is other authority which is called persuasive authority. All legal opinions are argued to be the way a court should rule, and if something is precedent and the court is the samended court or a lower courts then there is supposed to be an obligation to stay consistent with prior precedent.

Even if BvG is somehow not precedent, it is still how it was done once before and it can happen again. Courts consider and follow nonprecedents all the time.

You are inappropriately reassuring yourself with the idea of "not a precedent." BvG is going to be relitigated here. And the portions that will be relitigated are not 5-4 rulings, they're from the per curiam opinion about the need for statewide uniformity. That is an attractive legal claim IT IS WHAT WE TRIED TO GET. Now we can lose because Republicans screwed up.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

30 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Trump forces file Bush v Gore complaint to stop Wisconsin recount [View all] Land Shark Dec 2016 OP

K&R... spanone Dec 2016 #1

While I don't expect the recounts to change anything.... LisaM Dec 2016 #2

The corruption of democracy continues apace. How can we trust elections after this one? Coyotl Dec 2016 #3

Good question Coyotl Land Shark Dec 2016 #5

This graph should not be ignored. Cracklin Charlie Dec 2016 #7

Great way to visualize some of the evidence. Land Shark Dec 2016 #13

And the states w/o Senate races have half the 2016 red shift! Coyotl Dec 2016 #14

Very pursuasive, we need beyond reasonable doubt, which may or may not be prohibited from discovery. lonestarnot Dec 2016 #18

Election officials can't prove a legal election occurred at any level of proof Land Shark Dec 2016 #30

Figures...the lying scumbags run to Bush v Gore for cover. roamer65 Dec 2016 #4

Yeah they want to keep options open to rule the opposite if shoe on other foot. Nt Land Shark Dec 2016 #9

so nice to see you posting landshark. mopinko Dec 2016 #6

Thanks mopinko! Nt Land Shark Dec 2016 #8

Really? Bush V. Gore was not supposed to set a precedent (SCOTUS own statement) McCamy Taylor Dec 2016 #10

Please read the OP, not being a precedent only makes it worse Land Shark Dec 2016 #15

Bad Memories colsohlibgal Dec 2016 #11

K&R bdamomma Dec 2016 #12

Recounts are a threat moondust Dec 2016 #16

Yammering Yam doesn't want to be put on display for his cheat. lonestarnot Dec 2016 #17

The GOP is hiding something. Tricks they've been using for the past 15 years. C Moon Dec 2016 #19

Bush v Gore itself states it does not set a precedent, and is limited to that case. LS_Editor Dec 2016 #20

Not being precedent (if true) only means that same case could be decided either way next time Land Shark Dec 2016 #24

There is another alternative. Automatic partial recounts of a random sample pnwmom Dec 2016 #21

question. barbtries Dec 2016 #22

See #24. It hardly matters what they said if cases are factually quite similar. Land Shark Dec 2016 #25

well it's moot this election barbtries Dec 2016 #28

Land Shark! I remember your great posts from the dark days of the 2004 theft MadLinguist Dec 2016 #23

Thanks much, well, we see each other when there is common cause. :) Land Shark Dec 2016 #26

K&R red dog 1 Dec 2016 #27

Larry Tribe has, however, since said no jurisdiction for Bush v Gore ( political question doctrine) Land Shark Dec 2016 #29