I’ve never understood the intended purpose of basing legal decisions on past precedent. If a ruling can be based in solid reasoning, precedent isn’t needed to support it. If the ruling cannot be based in solid reasoning, it is undesirable for it to be supported. I’ve sometimes been told that the goal is to maintain fairness by ensuring consistency – but repeating unjust actions for consistency’s sake is madness. How is making a mistake twice better than making it once?