What Is Stare Decisis?

[Dinger]

Sorry, I plead ignorance.

[Eric J in MN]

1. The idea that something already decided should be left

that way and not overturned.

[AlCzervik]

2. settled law.

[philosophie_en_rose]

3. Let the decision stand.

Basically, the idea that a court should respect the precedents of prior court decisions and rule in a similar way. It does not apply if the current court decides that the previous case isn't similar enough to the current one.

[JohnLocke]

4. Link to Wikipedia article

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

[realFedUp]

5. here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=102149&mesg_id=102149

[Dinger]

6. Thanks : )

[Mabus]

7. It is the doctrine which allows continuity in the courts

rather than rehashing how a law is interpreted each time an issue is brought to court. Precedent (stare decisis) allows to an attorney to argue that every other time that a specific issue or law has been litigated that a specific result is to be expected.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

8. Don't be fooled

Stare decisis is a nice concept, and very often cited as a reason for ruling for or against something, but when the political climate changes, believe me, the Supreme Court will find any number of ways to overrule existing law.

The Supreme Court doesn't exist out there in a vacuum - and it shouldn't. It's perfectly aware - in its finest moments - of declaring a previous ruling to be wrong and to replace it with a more currently, politically responsive decision. And they'll concoct the best reasoning and intellectual gymnastics you've ever seen to make it absolutely impossible to understand if you're not hip to their collective political ears to the ground.

[Lefty48197]

9. Wait a minute! Let me get this straight...

...the "Supreme" Court Justices can rule from the bench? Overturn existing law precedent? I forget now, do the Republicans SUPPORT ruling from the bench, or do they OPPOSE it? I can't keep up with them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

10. What is WRONG with you, dammit?

The answer is YES to both your questions.

Sheeesh.

These liberals. I have to explain EVERYTHING to them.

<slamming door, lighting cigar, bursting into tears>

[Selatius]

12. They can. See Brown v. Board of Education

Segregation was struck down as unconstitutional. It overturned the established doctrine of "separate but equal" laid down in Plessy v. Ferguson.

[stlsaxman]

11. De Starry Skieses

is what you see at night when there ain't no clouds out!

[Lexingtonian]

13. technically, as people here have

written, a legal doctrine to stick fairly closely to previous decisions and reasonings. Which is necessary to some fairly large extent for there to be a stable body of interpretation of the laws and logical jurisprudence, and functional Rule of Law.

Assuming the jurisprudence of the past to be high quality and relevant and correct in essence, stare decisis is the basic conservative tack. Right wing ideology is, however, Rule by Power and relativist- to make law and verdicts conform to the wishes of monarchical/dictatorial/majoritarianist holders of power and use logic, record, etc as excuses for verdicts consistent with them or declare the precedents wrongful if they don't lead to the desired result. So, allegiance to stare decisis is the formal distinction between conservative and Rightist judges.

Not that consistency or Rule of Law have any strict relationship to actual justice. As Oliver Wendell Holmes told an appellant, "Young man, this is a court of laws, not a court of justice."

[usregimechange]

14. An excuse to not answer a question?

[omega minimo]

15. !

:kick: