Skip to main content
4 of 4
Remove clause that is irrelevant to the answer and has a patronizing connotation.

Your question seems to be based on the premise that courts' decisions are meant to make sense at all times: if a decision isn't coherent, the court gets ashamed about it and corrects it promptly, or, at least, eventually gets forced to correct it (or a higher court, if there is one, does so).

First of all, the decision in question is delivered by the highest court of the country. The legal status of such decisions is always "in force" unless they get overturned by the court itself, or the legislators pass a law that takes the decisions down. The reasoning which the court used to arrive to the decision (including any [mis]representations of facts) does not matter: the reasoning is given merely as courtesy (pun intended) for those who would need to apply it as case law. Even if the reasoning included pure math errors — rendering the decision objectively wrong, it would still be in force until taken down the usual way.

If the court wasn't the highest one, there could be appellate remedies. Otherwise no difference.

Greendrake
  • 27.5k
  • 4
  • 63
  • 126