@SrRochardBunson @ArenaCops @morganalafee @kaydenpat

Well that's a silly thing to say.

All you need to know is something changed? You don't need to know what it changed to, or why, or where it changed from? All of that is irrelevant?

The statement isn't even correct. The precedent had been changed a few times over the years, and the shifting precedent was part of the problem. It was never workable, which is why it had already been overturned as they tried to make an unworkable position work.

If all we need to know to judge your argument is a false claim about change, well then yeah, it does show how faulty your position is.