Posted on 05/16/2019 8:23:44 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
One of the most important doctrines in Western law is that of stare decisis, a Latin term of art which means "to stand by decided cases; to uphold precedents; to maintain former adjudications".
In modern jurisprudence, however, it has come to take on a life of its own, with all precedents being presumed to be well-founded, unbiased legal decisions, rather than political decisions, and presumed to have both the authority of the constitutional enactments on which they are based, plus that of the precedents on which they are based, so that later precedents are presumed to be more authoritative than earlier ones.
The doctrine also tends to give great weight to the opinion in the case, even to the point of treating the opinion as though it was law, even though only the order and findings have the actual force of law, and only in that case, and an explanation of how the decision was reached is only dictum, or commentary.
This means that a poorly-worded opinion can define a set of legal positions that exceed the bounds of the underlying constitutional enactments, and become the basis for future precedents, as though they were constitutional enactments themselves. The problem is exacerbated by the failure of judges to clearly delineate the boundaries between edict and dictum.
The doctrine tends to disfavor legal argument that precedents were wrongly decided, especially if they are precedents established at a higher level in the appeals hierarchy, and to demand the litigants "distinguish" their cases from adverse precedents, arguing that those precedents do not apply to the present case because of elements that make it different from the cases on which the precedents were established. This can be very difficult to do if there are a great many recent cases on the same issues
(Excerpt) Read more at constitution.org ...
Stare decisis only applies to decisions the Left likes.
Stare decisis is necessary for consistency in the application of law.
That said, it should not apply as a blanket restriction, in courts whose judges are political appointees, as these are political decisions thus being made and not the mere application of law.
RE: Stare decisis is necessary for consistency in the application of law.
It should NOT apply when the original decision was anti-constitutional in the first place.
Dredd Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson come to mind.
I would include Roe v. Wade in the mix, but whether it can be overturned remains to be seen.
The Supreme Court is the most wholly political court there is in this country. Were it not, you’d never see these very common ideological splits that correspond precisely to the two major political parties’ positions.
Dredd Scott was constitutional at the time. It was in the constitution that slaves were not full citizens. Instead of judicial activism, the court ruled on the constitution as written. This prompted congress to amend it to correct it, which is the way it’s supposed to happen.
When a State Supreme Court (That would be Washington State) can render a Political decision, that was neither JOINED, ARGUED, OR BRIEFED, i.e., and create Stare decisis, hence Stare @ the Excrement on the wall.
Cedar County Committee (People who wanted to create a New County) vs. Secretary of State Ralph Munro.
Oh, and in case you think I'm some how expressing sour grapes, Than don't take the time to order and listen for your self, at least their was one judge / justice who during the hearing said "That's as far as we should go." Paraphasing next: 'Based upon what is before us here today.'
So much for sour grapes.
Stare Decisis is the proper way to decide in common law courts at a county level. As America has abjured Common Law officially then there is no room for slavish devotion to Stare Decisis.
I don’t think Kavanaugh will vote to overturn. He is trying to get back into the good graces of the social elite and the press.
The false accusations made by Ford and
Other women against Kavanaugh were
Really a distraction.
What REALLY concerned me was Susan Collin’s reason for deciding to vote for
His confirmation, and that was his assurance to her that he was not going to overturn Roe v. Wade.
That should have been a red flag to all conservatives right there.
Always reminds me of Daniel and Esther in the Bible - once a king has issued a decree it can’t be changed. I always figured kings goofed up as much as the rest of us. Judges do too.
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.