medium · LSAT Logical Reasoning
Legal commentator: Defenders of judicial precedent often claim that the doctrine carries built-in safeguards against entrenching mistakes. They point to three: courts may overrule a bad precedent, legislatures may pass statutes that supersede it, and judges may 'distinguish' it away in later cases. Yet each safeguard falters in practice. Overruling is hemmed in by the very respect for settled law that the doctrine demands; legislative correction stalls when the harmed parties lack political clout; and distinguishing breeds a tangle of exceptions that obscures the law rather than clarifying it.
The commentator's discussion of the three safeguards functions primarily to
- cast doubt on how well the corrective devices invoked by precedent's defenders actually work in practice.
- propose an alternative legal system that would dispense with judicial precedent altogether.
- trace the historical development of constitutional doctrine over several centuries.
- argue that the predictability of the law matters more than its clarity.
- demonstrate that judicial precedent is wholly incapable of ever correcting any of its own errors.
Sign up free to see the explanation and track your rank →
More LSAT Logical Reasoning practice
- Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?
- Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the statements above?
- The question type just described is best identified as which one of the following?
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed in that the argument
- The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument
- Which one of the following most accurately describes the relationship the statement establ
- Which one of the following can be validly inferred from the two conditionals above?
- Which one of the following must be true given the statement above?