[Piranha]

I think he must have given a more systematic outline with various tests, as is customary when a court reviews an issue that requires independent judgment. Courts construct tests all of the time, and from his comments this morning it seems as though he has a specific test (comprised of multiple points) that he will use to analyze these situations.

[Ramius]

While he might come up with various factors that one would use, I think he'd likely say that there isn't any formula that you can just plug a case into and give the answer.

[Clump]

I agree. My point is that these "tests" always give the nominee plenty of wiggle room anytime precedent is revisited. No person can predict how the test will apply in any given situation. It is just like broad legal tests applied by different judges to a similar set of facts in coming to different conclusions.

I think my point was to poke fun at stare decisis. I am a lawyer and I am opposed to this doctrine altogether. A decision need only rest on this doctrine when the justice cannot base the decision on the Constitution. Case law should only be relied upon when the precedential case was grounded in the Constitution to begin with.

Roe is a good example of precedent not worthy of being respected, let alone followed. Other cases, dealing with the 4th Amendment for instance, have legal value which should be used as a guide. They did not originate in a broad sweeping social policy revolution.

This thread will self destruct if and when I am ever nominated to the federal bench (as if my opinions here would be my biggest problem).