A valid argument as to why the rule stare decisis should not be an absolute rule is that
A)no two sets of facts are identical in every respect.
B)fairness in law often requires that judges exercise some flexibility in their approaches to some cases.
C)precedents only bind the same set of circumstances.
D)judges are only bound to follow decisions of higher courts.
E)all of the above

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

Stare decisis, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent, should not be absolute because: A) factual situations can vary greatly, necessitating different legal interpretations; B) fairness may require judicial flexibility; C) precedents are meant to guide similar circumstances, not act as unchangeable edicts; and D) while judges generally follow higher court decisions, this does not preclude the need for adaptability in the face of unique cases or evolving societal norms.

A Valid Argument as to Why the Rule Stare Decisis