In Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995), Sandra Day O’Connor wrote:
“Remaining true to an ‘intrinsically sounder’ doctrine established in prior cases better serves the values of Stare Decisis than would following a more recently decided case inconsistent with the decisions that came before it; the latter course would simply compound the recent error, and would likely make the unjustified break from previously established doctrine complete. In such a situation, ‘special justification’ exists to depart from the recently decided case.”
And referencing another case:
In Consumer Products Safety v. GTE Sylvania, 447 U.S. 102, the Supreme Court said:
“We begin with the familiar canon of statutory construction that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary, the language must be regarded as conclusive.”
Dude, you don't seem to understand what case law is: in many instances, it IS the law. Most tort law is the result of case law, not statutes. There are also common law crimes that are enforced independent of state penal codes.
There lies the issue of Stare Decisis that has a sounder meaning of what the real law was intended to be.
What in the hell are you talking about? What is the "real law?"
Boilerplate case law has proven to be inconsistent to what the previous established statutory law was intended to be.
First of all, what is boilerplate case law? Second of all, how do you propose we interpret statutes when the statutory meaning is vague?
O’Connor wrote...
Has aboslutely nothing to do with what you are talking about. What the opinion said was following one line of previous cases was better than following another line of more recent cases. She was arguing for going back to established precedent that was apparantly displaced more recently to the decision in question. But in either case, she was using CASE LAW (whether recent or not) for authority. This isn't an example of what you are talking about.
Consumer Products Safety...
...says what every lawyer who's ever researched a statute already knows. What's your point? All statutory based authority results from the statute itself and then cases interpreting the statute. The statute is never ignored; it is the basis for the cases that interpret it.
I'm not sure you know what you're talking about. If you do, you aren't communicating it very well, as you points here make little sense.