'doctrine of precedent suitable for nation of sheep'do you agree discuss setting out argument for or against doctrine of binding precedent?

Answer 1

Answer

The term, "nation of sheep" implies a total lack of autonomous decision-making, based upon the metaphorical creatures known to continue blindly once pointed on the way.

This demonstrates a fundamental flaw in the implied premise of the question, because it only takes one new case to overturn a bad precedent.

The U.S. Supreme Court has overturned its own precedents over a hundred times.

However, the value of binding precedent is that the outcome of cases become that much more predictable, and thus avoidable, at least in theory.

For each case that law books capture in appellate reporters, there may be hundreds that were never filed or never made it to appeals because the lawyers involved understood the risks of challenging precedents.