Right, that's the #2 scenario where all the decision-making is done by the judge. The judge doesn't check off a list. He reads the statute, considers the facts

Right, that's the #2 scenario where all the decision-making is done by the judge. The judge doesn't check off a list. He reads the statute, considers the facts presented, and determines how best to achieve the goal of the statute. He just doesn't refer to previous cases, and considers each case uniquely. But precedent in the common law is only as binding as the facts and argumentation convinces. So that's why I'm saying the differences between these two systems are more mechanical than they are substantively different approaches where one is reasonable and the other isn't. Neither system chains themselves to the rote definition of words or statutes. In both legal systems, reasonability and judgment are used to ensure that the law is being applied appropriately.