 
 <prompt> How practice of law dey different now from how e be years ago? Given di last question, write one context wey get di answer. E fit be 1 - 20 sentences. Context: <response>: As federal judge Alex Kozinski don talk, binding precedent as we sabi am today no dey exist when dem write the Constitution. Judicial decisions no dey consistently, accurately, and faithfully reported for both sides of the Atlantic (people wey dey report dey often just dey rewrite or no dey publish decisions wey dem no like), and United Kingdom no get coherent court hierarchy before the end of the 19th century. Still, English judges for the eighteenth century believe for natural law theories of law wey don old, wey talk say law get existence wey dey independent of wetin individual judges talk. Judges see themselves as people wey just dey declare the law wey don always dey exist for theory, and no be say dem dey make the law. So, judge fit reject another judge opinion as just an incorrect statement of the law, like how scientists dey regularly reject each other conclusions as incorrect statements of the laws of science. 