The precedent of "not a precedent"

[ThoughtCriminal]

I'm not a legal expert. So is it a bit unusual to have as part of a ruling, a disclaimer that the ruling is not a precedent? It seems to be at the very least an admission from the Court majority they are carving out a very special case that either conflicts with previous rulings, would be very dangerous if applied to similar cases (cough, ahem - not intended for plaintiffs that are not right-wing fundamentalist Christian), or both.

I do not parse many rulings, but the last time I noticed this sort of language was Bush v. Gore.

[The Roux Comes First]

1. I'm with You

My last encounter with this sleazy "let's make an exception for our friends" sort of ruling was Gore-Bush.

Total bullshit from what I can tell. More or less admitting that the "supreme" court in this case is acting like thugs and not adhering to proper process.

[The Magistrate]

2. It Is A Court's Open Admission It Is Acting Despotically, Sir

It is a court admitting its decision is not based in law, but in the political or moral preferences of the judges, for which they cannot honestly find any support in law.

[blkmusclmachine]

4. ^This.^ The Court KNOWS Hobby Lobby was a bullshit case.

[elleng]

3. Not an every day event, but

I wouldn't call it 'unusual.' When courts recognize unusual fact situations, they'll do it. They did it in Bush v Gore.

[pnwmom]

11. It was very unusual then and it's still unusual now. Law is based on precedent.

The fact that they're saying this shows the foundation for their decision is very shaky.

[RainDog]

14. The 5 who made the Bush v. Gore decision should've been impeached

Vincent Bugliosi had started an online petition and campaign to impeach all 5 justices who made that one-time ruling because the constitution states the House should decide such an issue.

At this point, I can't say what I would like to happen to them because it's very not nice.

[elleng]

17. Yes, lots of 'very not nice' thoughts around.

[unblock]

5. precedents are confined to a narrow set of circumstances by logic and reason, not be decree.

it is the job of the courts to provide clear logic and reason as to how and why cases are to be decided. it is that logic and reason that clarifies if a precedent is to apply broadly or narrowly.

if the hobby lobby case is to apply to female birth control only, then the court needed to supply a clear rule as to why their logic would not equally apply to other situations involving other medical treatments and/or other religious beliefs.


the precedent they established was that closely held companies have the right to ignore law that conflicts with "sincerely-held beliefs". their logic and reason to not provide clear limits to this "right".


the only effect of them inserting the silly "this is only a narrow precedent disclaimer" is to extend the political gimmick of inserting a meaningless disclaimer in a vein attempt to falsely minimize an unpopular court position. they are following in the grand tradition of bush v. gore.

[former9thward]

6. The Bush v Gore ruling did not contain such language.

You may wish to read it again. Bush v Gore has been cited as precedent in many voter rights lawsuits.

Where in Hobby Lobby does it say "not a precedent"?

[BootinUp]

8. There was some kind of language

meant to narrow the scope to only the 2000 FL election. Pretty sure. But you are also correct that is has still been cited in other cases iirc.

[former9thward]

9. The following sentence was in Bush v Gore

"Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."

Nothing about it not being a precedent. The sentence merely states the obvious and something similar could be put in almost any case before the court.

[BootinUp]

10. Well it has been interpreted differently,

that the Court did not want to affect election law in general.

[pnwmom]

12. Yes, it did. But you are right that the language has been ignored.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2010/12/06/101206taco_talk_toobin

Even at the time, Bush v. Gore was treated as a kind of novelty item, a one-off decision that applied only to the peculiar facts then before the Justices. The majority itself seemed to want it that way. In the most famous sentence from the decision, the Justices wrote, “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”

[former9thward]

18. There is nothing in that statement that says it should not be used as precedent.

It is a sentence that states the obvious. The case has been cited as precedent many times since. There is no such language in Hobby Lobby either.

[pnwmom]

20. That is what "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances" means --

in the context of constitutional law.

[former9thward]

21. No it does not.

I hope no one is paying you to teach law. The case HAS been cited as PRECEDENT MANY times in other lawsuits.

[BootinUp]

7. To me its a red flag: "Warning here comes a load of bullshit".

Or

"Because we say so. So There."



They really revealed their lack of concern for everyday people (women) this time.

[Puzzledtraveller]

13. The overreaction is ridiculous

yes. I think so, and I thought about all my female friends and women in my family including my baby daughter.

The real worry should be over the union decision.

[enough]

15. The real worry is about both. (nt)

[el_bryanto]

16. Well it's possible 15 years from now we'll look back and agree with you

But right here and now, regardless of what the Supreme Court wants to pretend, this could be used as a precedent. It could be used to argue that companies religious practices should trump those of its employees. It could be used as further evidence that a woman's health care issues should not be left to the woman to decide. Maybe it won't be and maybe even if there are attempts made, they will fail in the courts.

But right now, there's no way to know - and it certainly doesn't look like it's a step in any sort of a positive discussion.

Bryant

[MohRokTah]

19. Because nobody can be outraged about two things at once.