> Literally the lawyers’ jobs to do this. Sure, but we're talking about an adversarial system where the lawyers are necessarily at-odds with each other, so the

> Literally the lawyers’ jobs to do this. Sure, but we're talking about an adversarial system where the lawyers are necessarily at-odds with each other, so they research the issue each from their own perspective. Then the one side will present the judge (in motions, etc.) with "here are ten cases that support our position, we've researched them exhaustively," and the other side goes, "no, no, those are distinguishable because X, here are ten cases that support OUR position, we've researched them extensively," -- and the judge and his clerks, so busy that it takes them two months to respond to any motion or communication, often just go with their guts and justify their decision post hoc. > I don’t think it’s a coïncidence that the oldest continuous legal systems in the world are precedent-based. lol, dude, it's a mess right now. If society cared at all about justice, and especially about access to justice, the current system would undergo absolute root-and-branch overhaul.