Precedent means that the law is predictable, which is essential to a free-market economy.
Every day, business people go to lawyers and ask, "is it legal to do X?" Without precedent, no one could get a reliable answer, and the economy would be seriously undermined.
Take one tiny example: Would you ever hire an employee if there were no binding precedent on when it is legal to fire that employee, and your only option was to fire someone without knowing whether a jury would decide after the fact if you owed damages?
I probably didn’t make myself clear, but I specifically prefaced my comment with, “in this context”, in which I was referring to legal mechanics, and the appeal process relative to this specific type of case. Individual judges have way too much power, and can use ridiculous nuance to throw out a case - like this one. The intent of the law is ‘justice’. The mechanics of the law too often preclude justice.
I stand by my comment about rethinking precedence. I’m not saying throw out all case law, but perpetuating a bad decision by a judge, just because that decision is ‘in the books’, is perpetuating bad law. There need to be better ways to challenge existing case law, and we also need a ‘quality control’ mechanism for judges (particularly federal judges) that reviews their decisions and ‘judges’ their competency. This would help to quell the overreach of activist judges, which has become a huge cancer in our legal system.
Regarding the example of business people asking lawyers ‘is it legal to do X?’, in many cases this is because the laws are poorly written, and thus interpretation is confusing. Just because there’s an opinion on the books that sets precedence for the interpretation of that law doesn’t mean it was the correct opinion in the first place.
Regarding the employment law example you gave, I understand your point, but the reality is that individual employment law cases more often than not turn on the emotional reactions of a jury, or the fallible decisions of a judge. Whether or not an employee plaintiff, or the employer get justice is highly variable, and the outcome could be entirely different depending upon who the judge is and who the attorneys are - irrespective of who was actually damaged. Further, for employment cases that wind up in federal court, federal judges can very easily overturn or diminish damages given by a jury. That’s too much power for a judge.
Anyway, thanks for your input.