|
I think that is a stretch Aguila. A "non-legal" precedent, by your chosen definition, involves a measure of commonality. Or, as a model, convention, that will generally be accepted by the "common man" as such. That is not the case here, not even close.
Since we are talking about a "legal issue", the "common man" may rationally infer that the legal version of the word precedent is the one in use. If you really want to be pedantic, it would be more appropriate to focus the discussion to the general use and understanding of "legal precedent". Glossing over divergent verbiage with a pass for someone's misunderstanding of the facts always reminds me of our past POTUS inventing Clintonese by changing the common understanding of the word "is".
|