Please respond$/$react to$$these $2$Discussion posts$$at at least $5-7$sentences each for discussion forum.

Discussion#$1)$ Stare Decisis: Is a legal principle that means courts should follow previous rulings on similar cases to maintain consistency and fairness in the law. It ensures that legal decisions are predictable, helping individuals and businesses understand likely outcomes based on past rulings.

I believe judges should have the ability to look beyond precedent when necessary, though it should be used carefully. While following precedent is essential for stability, some past rulings may no longer be relevant or just, especially as societal values evolve. In such cases, judges should be able to depart from precedent to reflect current laws, morals, or technological advancements.

For example, laws once allowed segregation, but these precedents were overturned when society recognized the need for equality. If judges are too bound by outdated precedents, the law can become unjust. However, this flexibility should be exercised sparingly to avoid creating instability in the legal system, especially for businesses that rely on consistency.

In short, while Stare Decisis is important for fairness, there should be room for judges to adapt the law to changing realities when necessary, ensuring the system remains both reliable and just.

Discussion#$2)1)$ Stare Decisis is a common law doctrine that obligates judges to abide by precedents established in their jurisdictions.$$

$2)$ Although the principal of stare decisis is vital for keeping the law stable and predictable, and helps the courts to be more efficient, I think judges should have the power to look beyond the precedents, but only if there is a compelling reason to do so$.$ For instance, if a precedent is outdated, incorrect, unfair, or simply not applicable anymore due to technological or social changes, then the judges should be allowed to overlook the precedents to adapt to the new changes.$$

$3)$The laws that have been made many years ago, may not be relevant today or they may not address the new issues or changes in the society. Furthermore, some cases may not be identical and may need closer examination rather than deciding the case only by former decisions. In addition, some past decisions may have been biased, unfair, or simply lack the information or necessary expertise. Thus, the judges should have the power to look beyond the precedent when necessary. However, this power should be treated with caution and should not be overused or abused. In conclusion, stare decisis in an important factor for keeping judicial system stable and efficient, but allowing the judges to look beyond the precedent, may help to keep the law fair, relevant, and up to date.