Thanks for the simple explanation. Not sure I understand this whole "legacy" thing. Why should that be a factor?
I'm trying to compare this situation with the software development process, as crazy as that sounds. Over time, a code base can become extremely convoluted and/or huge monoliths for various reasons. Shitty programmers touch the code and create regressions. Moron IT contractors develop untested modules and break the build. Business rushes projects through with unreasonable timelines. These issues usually surface with large enterprise projects in poorly managed groups. One solution is to acknowledge and fix the questionable architectural decisions, peer-review code going forward, and remove legacy code that prevents better coding practices. A large code refactoring project is usually the next step. Refactoring allows teams to correct previous mistakes and move forward in a constructive manner.
When it comes to law, I guess there is a similar problem. Every year more decisions are made by all levels of the judiciary. And every year, as more cases are decided, it exposes laws to contradictions IMHO. Perhaps logical paths for what the current law actually is reveal themselves, but might get drowned out by previous contradictory rulings. I read all those motions today. They read like a free-for-all to cite the most cases to support either side. Then I read online sources, watch the news, read various opinions---and this shit is all over the place. And this reminds me of those large codebases full of problems. But in software, we can refactor to solve our problems. The IT VP and Directors who created the issues---we can't worry about their "legacy". Things just need to be fixed properly. So they give the go-ahead to fix all the issues. Does the law have this ability to basically refactor itself? And again, why the hell should I care about the legacy of some Chief Justice? I can't even name previous Chief Justices because well, that's not my field. So why should the average person care about that?