General Discussion

cthulu2016

(10,960 posts) Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:09 PM Apr 2014

The Supreme Court was following precedent (twisted but true)

Precedent sounds like time-honored wisdom, but there is no time limit. A decision made yesterday is as much precedent handed down from USSC as anything else.

Reading today's decision, I was struck but the invocations of Citizens United. "Well, this court held in Justin v. Beiber (1892) and Spy v. Spy (1903) that such and such, and then also held in Citizens United that such and such..."

So, were they following "precedent" in saying, we said some shit last week and now that might as well be carved in stone... yeah, I guess so.

Doesn't make it any prettier, of course.

2 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Supreme Court was following precedent (twisted but true) (Original Post) cthulu2016 Apr 2014 OP

Sure it is. Precedent is the usual reason conservatives cite to uphold a law. LuvNewcastle Apr 2014 #1

So you are saying they cited their previous decision as precedent for their current one? Only this okaawhatever Apr 2014 #2

LuvNewcastle

(16,844 posts)

1. Sure it is. Precedent is the usual reason conservatives cite to uphold a law.

Reply to cthulu2016 (Original post)

Wed Apr 2, 2014, 01:17 PM

Apr 2014

But precedent doesn't mean shit if conservatives want to overturn something. Would Scalia use the Roe v. Wade precedent to uphold a law that allows abortion? Citing precedent usually just means, "There's a precedent and I like the law, too." At least it's that way with the conservative justices on the SCOTUS.

okaawhatever

(9,461 posts)

2. So you are saying they cited their previous decision as precedent for their current one? Only this