Originally Posted by
GunshipGuy
Well, I disagree but do not take offense. You can reserve all the rights you want to but my point was the impression it makes. As you saw from my post, I said this was an intangible and would not/could not be cited to justify anything, but it does leave an impression. And as it's my opinion as to how this could possibly influence minds involved in resolving a grievance there is no right or wrong. And if you don't think opinions matter in such circumstances just look at the SCOTUS. They have all manners of precedence to refer to and can back any vote of theirs up with legal citations, but in the end it usually comes down to their interpretation vs someone else's.
Gunship Guy,
The reason the Supreme Court gets to make interpretations is because that is their job description. They are kinda unique as Courts go, don't you think?
As for precedent, there is none. Action taken under a reservation of rights is not precedent. Wiki's your buddy
Reservation of rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bet a negotiated resolution happens before we could get a grievance hearing....