Standards applied in the establishing of Precedents for Case Law decisions that originate in the minds of men are unreliable. What we are talking about here is what led to decisions like Dred Scott 1857 and Everson v. Board of Education 1947. Politically adaptive Case Law helps sanctuary city bosses who give voting rights to criminals and empower radical secular teachers. Unfortunately, Case Law substantially replaced historic Common Law around 1962–63.
The term “Case Law” comes from a Harvard University law professor, Christopher C. Langdell, who was an atheistic Darwinian and thought to be the leading inspiration for the adoption of controlling man-made Precedents for Case Law (Understanding the Times, David A. Noebel, Harvest House, 1991, pages 506–510). Law school professors who discount the traditional moral predicate that applies to Common Law go hand-in-hand with government established union bosses who now promote political correctness.
The inferiority of Case Law decisions is proven by the fact that its proponents need the monopoly force of unelected tenure-powered secular lawyers on the Supreme Court. The enemies of citizen self-reliance and freedom are willing to blindside people with a twisted version of the Bill of [unalienable citizen] Rights and the radical law school professors who teach them. The tyranny of judicial corruption and subsequent loss of citizen control over the soft sciences in public schools has led to cultural devastation.
Quoting John Stuart Mill about the injustice of totalitarians, the late Supreme Court Judge Rehnquist wrote, “The disposition of mankind, whether as rulers or as fellow-citizens, to impose their own opinions and inclinations as a rule of conduct on others, is so energetically supported by some of the best and by some of the worst feeling incident to human nature, that it is hardly ever kept under restraint by anything but want of power” (The Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist, Random House, Inc., 1987, p. 277).
~ D. Norris