Skip to comments.
The Law of Lawlessness (If stare decisis trumps the Constitution, then we don't have one.)
The American Prowler ^
| 11/2/2005
| George Neumayr
Posted on 11/01/2005 9:49:29 PM PST by nickcarraway
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
To: nickcarraway
big bump, save to hard drive
2
posted on
11/01/2005 9:54:18 PM PST
by
GeronL
(Leftism is the INSANE Cult of the Artificial)
To: nickcarraway
Democrats want opinions to trump the Constitution itself.
Excellent piece.
3
posted on
11/01/2005 9:55:24 PM PST
by
Kryptonite
(McCain, Graham, Warner, Snowe, Collins, DeWine, Chafee - put them in your sights)
To: Kryptonite
Wrong. DemonCraps want the Constitution to be totally thrown out.
4
posted on
11/01/2005 9:56:44 PM PST
by
clee1
(We use 43 muscles to frown, 17 to smile, and 2 to pull a trigger. I'm lazy and I'm tired of smiling.)
To: nickcarraway
the SCOTUS has set themselves up as the Arbitars of the
doctrine of common law. And it is common law that a law
passed by the Congress cannot overturn.
"I woke up this morning and my country was gone"
"Yesterday is a different place, they do things differently
here"
5
posted on
11/01/2005 9:56:44 PM PST
by
p[adre29
(Arma in armatos)
To: nickcarraway
When there are multiple possible decisions one could issue which would comply with regulations, statutes, treaties, and the Constitution, a judge should typically use stare decisis to select among them. If and when, however, stare decisis would suggest something other than what the regulations, statutes, treaties, or Constitution require, it should be disregarded.
6
posted on
11/01/2005 9:57:43 PM PST
by
supercat
(Don't fix blame--FIX THE PROBLEM.)
To: Canticle_of_Deborah; Lancey Howard; maryz
7
posted on
11/01/2005 10:02:46 PM PST
by
nickcarraway
(I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
To: nickcarraway
Dred Scott was stare decisis for many years.
8
posted on
11/01/2005 10:04:26 PM PST
by
adamsjas
To: nickcarraway
Wow! This one is a stone masterpiece. A keeper.
Thanks for the ping.
To: nickcarraway
Roberts made it pretty clear that, while stare decisis should be carefully weighed, it does not trump all other considerations.
10
posted on
11/01/2005 10:06:07 PM PST
by
Fenris6
(3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
To: supercat
When there are multiple possible decisions one could issue which would comply with regulations, statutes, treaties, and the Constitution, a judge should typically use stare decisis to select among them. That might be true if all prior decisions were equally well evaluated.
However, who would want Kelo upheld on that basis?
Its important to ALWAYS start at the Consitituion and work forward.
11
posted on
11/01/2005 10:07:03 PM PST
by
adamsjas
To: nickcarraway
These idiots should be asked how slavery was abolished and voting rights were established for blacks and women (among other things)...
It wasn't by keeping legal precedence...
12
posted on
11/01/2005 10:07:25 PM PST
by
DB
(©)
To: p[adre29
And it is common law that a law passed by the Congress cannot overturn. Do you have a source for that? Would you want that to apply to a Dem controlled Congress?
13
posted on
11/01/2005 10:23:35 PM PST
by
Ken H
To: nickcarraway
If stare decisis becomes a more fundamental doctrine than the Constitution itself, then we've lost it for good. BOHICA. Even with Alito, conservatives wouldn't have that strong a majority. If Roe is to be undone, it will be piecemeal.
14
posted on
11/01/2005 10:43:31 PM PST
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: nickcarraway
Supreme Court Justices take an oath not to stare decisis but to the Constitution. If stare decisis becomes a more fundamental doctrine than the Constitution itself, then we've lost it for good.What an excellent campaign slogan for the Republicans in '06!
15
posted on
11/01/2005 10:46:36 PM PST
by
sourcery
(Either the Constitution trumps stare decisis, or else the Constitution is a dead letter.)
To: nickcarraway
"Stare decisis" is the modern demagogue's code phrase for "I stole it fair and square."
To: Carry_Okie
If Roe is to be undone, it will be piecemeal.I submit to you Roe would be largely moot were it not for philosophical bent of SCOTUS for the last several decades.
Consider the ramifications to our society if over the span of the last fifty years "speech" was interpreted as "that which is spoken."
Can you imagine the influence of the modern liberal if they had to actually assemble their positions into cogent arguments? Or if the doctrine of "no such thing as a false idea" were not operative? Wouldn't you like to be able to bring class action suites against news organizations with a demonstrable intention of manipulating public opinion?
To: nickcarraway
"Stare decisis" is the doctrine of lazy judges. Where is it written in stone that something is necessarily correct just because an earlier decision said it was? Why can't so-called 'case law' be challenged? Where in our Constitution does it provide that case-law is incontrovertable?
18
posted on
11/01/2005 11:07:39 PM PST
by
TheCrusader
("The frenzy of the Mohammedans has devastated the churches of God" -Pope Urban II, 1097AD)
To: nickcarraway
Stare decisis has become a euphemism for the expectation that justices will bow before those great moments in liberal jurisprudence when the court rejected stare decisis to invent a new right or declare settled laws unconstitutional according to "evolving standards" of indecency. Exactly! The same principle operates (at least in MA) when any given issue is the subject of a ballot referendum question. As long as the liberals keep losing, the question shows up year after year (often expressed in progressively more confusing wording); once the liberals win, the subject is closed!
19
posted on
11/02/2005 12:22:03 AM PST
by
maryz
To: Ken H; p[adre29
And it is common law that a law passed by the Congress cannot overturn. Do you have a source for that?
What I think he means is there were a couple of recent decisions where old English law was invoked. (DNA tests proving a child was not fathered by the husband, but he was required to pay for it never the less).
Since this is English law, being applied by American courts, its not at all clear that there is anything the congress could do about it. If congress created a new law the court might simply declare the new law unconstitutional because the English common law was assumed at the time of the signing of the constitution.
I don't necessarily buy that argument, but I can see where he is going with it.
This inclusion of foreign law is quite worrisome.
20
posted on
11/02/2005 12:56:28 AM PST
by
adamsjas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson