The talk of a new justice and the accompanying hysteria has renewed a question in my mind I’ve asked before and never got an answer to.
Does the judiciary give more weight to their own decisions or to the actual Constitution?
If it is the former, was this the intention?
Again if it is the former, does this tendancy accelarate the drift away from the anchor?
A little help perhaps:
Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of precedent.
Courts cite to stare decisis when an issue has been previously brought to the court and a ruling already issued. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” In practice, the Supreme Court will usually defer to its previous decisions even if the soundness of the decision is in doubt.
The original decision interpreted the Constitution.
Your question sets up a false dichotomy. The alternatives overlap. The implied assumption in your question renders it worthless.
Thanks for stopping by. You are ignoring the fact that the “original decision” quite frequently and obviously “interprets” the Constitution completely incorrectly. By their own admission.
Or they could decide cases based on the wording of the constitution rather than making things up as they go along.
By who’s own admission?
They do that. You believe that they don’t. We will agree to disagree.
When the Supreme Court overrules a previous decision. Despite the ignorance of your topic question, your reply shows that the Supreme Court values the Constitution over its earlier holding.
Now you can’t honestly pretend that your terrible question hasn’t been answered.
The judiciary’s.
Who is “the judiciary” and where do they say it?
Do you know what the basis is for this phenomena?
In the original decision?
And if the previous decision is not overturned?
Yes. Again, you can no longer pretend that your question hasn’t been answered. The whining was getting old for everyone.
Then the Supreme Court understands that its previous holding was correct Constitutionally.
Happy now?
You haven’t answered the question at all.
If you don’t like the thread, you are free to leave.
While precedent is useful for the consistency of application of the law, stare decisis is not absolute. If a prior decision is wrong, a court should be able to overrule it.
I do not disagree. The question becomes do they (often enough)?
I offer Wickard v. Filburn.
You literally quoted my answer in this lie of a reply.
Does it now? Have you read Robert’s opinion in NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS?
