Originally Posted by Superguy
Fortunately, precedent isn't law, and they do change from time to time. Segregation was justified by precedent, but another SCOTUS at another time said that didn't fly.
I think the challenge can be brought again in a different way. I hope it does, as this is a very bad decision.
Until it's challenged, case precedence is, in fact, "law."
stare decisis: Latin for "to stand by a decision," the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. Reliance on such precedents is required of trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule, for the trial court cannot ignore the precedent (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law").