[johnb838]

Naw, he's right. They have the power to say that previous precedent was wrong... they don't have to rely on previous precedent, or stare decisis. So in that sense it IS their job to make law. What they AREN'T supposed to do is make law without basis in the constitution.

[musanon]

[The Supreme Court] is a totally different ball game . . . A circuit court judge is bound by stare decisis. They don't get to make new law. They have to abide by [legal precedent].


So the SC makes law, eh?

9 skip_intro

---

Naw, he's right.

They have the power to say that previous precedent was wrong... they don't have to rely on previous precedent, or stare decisis.

So in that sense it IS their job to make law.

What they AREN'T supposed to do is make law without basis in the constitution.
99 John838

---

In -no- sense is it their job to make law.

Courts can only make decisions on whether fed/state/local legislation is Constitutional.

No one has to obey unconstitutional laws, but even tho 'struck down', they remain on the books until changed by new legislation.

It's a separation of powers thing.