Rules persisting only from blind imitation of the past are indefensible.

Evidence

It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that so it was laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past. — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 2500

Categorization

• XREF: Holmes’s classic critique; pairs with the ‘relative evils’ passage as the anti-rigid-precedent pole.
• SHARE: The kind of quotable line a law student would text to a classmate.