Great post. Here's what I don't understand about all of this: if the government will abide by not only the Supreme Court's judgments, but also its opinions/precedents, does that not apply to precedents that are already on the books? Doesn't the fact that the government doesn't concede the cases are settled by precedent contravene its argument that it will abide by the Supreme Court's precedents?
Great post. Here's what I don't understand about all of this: if the government will abide by not only the Supreme Court's judgments, but also its opinions/precedents, does that not apply to precedents that are already on the books? Doesn't the fact that the government doesn't concede the cases are settled by precedent contravene its argument that it will abide by the Supreme Court's precedents?