From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   The Horny Goat  wrote:   
   >On Thu, 25 Dec 2025 16:57:01 -0500, Attila  wrote:   
      
   >>SCOTUS can modify any law or previous ruling it desires.  It   
   >>simply cannot make new laws.   
      
   >They do that all the time in establishing precedents based on   
   >interpretations of the act in question.   
      
   "Modifying any law" is making new law. The court states the law.   
      
   >Lower courts do too though their interpretations are routinely   
   >supported or put aside by higher courts.   
      
   The trial court rules whether the exact facts and circumstances of the   
   case at trial are similar enough to the reported case that it's   
   precedent. There's always a legal argument to be made along these lines.   
   The trial court isn't necessarily completely off the rails when it gives   
   less consideration to a reported decision.   
      
   >This is standard practice in all Common Law countries (USA, UK,   
   >Canada, Australia and many more) That's why precedents are important   
   >in law. Where there is no applicable US precedent (which is a LOT less   
   >common than it used to be) it is not uncommon to cite foreign   
   >references which do not carry the weight of law unless the judge says   
   >something like "in A vs B, in  they ruled this way -   
   >and that makes sense so I will rule that way as well"   
      
   Sure. A judge can allow a decision of a foreign court or even another   
   domestic geographical area elsewhere in the country to guide his   
   thinking, but he's not obliged to follow.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)