Inductive Arguments

A final point to remember is that arguments from precedents are usually defeasible, like other inductive arguments. One reason is that more precedents might be found, and these new precedents might conflict with the precedents in the original argument. Another reason is that any precedent can be overturned. Precedents are not supposed to be overturned unless they are very badly mistaken or immoral, but this is always a possibility. Nonetheless, even though arguments from precedents always might be refuted in such ways, precedents can still provide reasons for legal decisions.

So far we have looked at arguments from precedents as ways to determine what is necessary or sufficient to violate the law. Even after this is determined, the law still must be applied to the facts in the present case. In Plessy, the Court held that there was no intent to discriminate, because the statute in Plessy was “reasonable” and “enacted in good faith for the promotion of the public good and not for the annoyance or oppression of a particular class.” This claim is highly questionable. In his famous dissent, Justice Harlan denies it when he writes:

Everyone knows that the statute in question had its origin in the purpose, not so much to exclude white persons from railroad cars occupied by blacks, as to exclude colored people from coaches occupied by or assigned to white persons. . . . No one would be so wanting in candor as to assert the contrary.