4 ms·
You edited the comment I responded to and removed the "precedent" related part, which is supposed to be an important part of US jurisprudence; discussing edited
by jbigelow76 4y ago
You edited the comment I responded to and removed the "precedent" related part, which is supposed to be an important part of US jurisprudence; discussing edited comments without original context/comment is pointless.
- everfree 4y agoI believe I edited it before we went off on this tangent, but to be honest I can't be sure. Your comment was posted 40 minutes after mine, and I don't usually go back that late to edit my comments. If I did, I didn't do it intentionally. Precedent is itself no more than an interpretation of law, in other words a line of legal reasoning that's already been ossified. I probably edited out the part about precedent because I felt it was redundant to "legal reasoning". In any case, I don't see how "precedent" makes or breaks anyone's argument here.