there are different kinds of precedent. by that i mean there s vertical precedent, which is what people are most familiar with. there are cases that are handed down by higher courts, the appellate court, the supreme court. those bind the lower court. even if you disagree with them, you have to follow them, because they re binding precedent. but there s also horizontal precedent. it s about maintaining consistency and predictability in the rule of law. what that means is, when you are in a district, there are many judges and if someone else in your district has handled a case that comes out or that involves the same issues and comes out in a certain way, you as the second judge have to contend with that
they need to survive. do you agree that those principles are just as relevant today as they were when the supreme court first decided new york times versus sullivan? new york times versus sullivan is the continuing binding precedent of the supreme court and does state the principles that the court has determined are undergirding the first amendment right to free press. ok. and last summer, actually, in barisha v. boston, the supreme court declined to hear a case, and justice thomas and justice gorsuch dissented, arguing the court should reconsider the holding in sullivan. how would you approach a case that sought to limit or uphold