stare decisis and not-so-surprising lies before the Senate

[Coexist]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/roberts-alito-and-the-ru_b_54273.html

John Roberts assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that judges must "be bound down by rules and precedents." <snip>
Similarly, Samuel Alito testified to the Senate that the doctrine of stare decisis is "a fundamental part of our legal system." This principle, he explained, "limits the power of the judiciary" and "reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions." Stare decisis, he added, it is "not an inexorable command," but there must be a strong "presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents."

It is hardly surprising that Roberts and Alito would pay such obeisance to the doctrine of stare decisis in order to get themselves confirmed. Stare decisis is, after all, the bedrock principle of the rule of law. Not only does it promote stability and encourage judges to decide cases based on principle rather than on a preference for one or another of the parties before them, but it also serves importantly to reduce the politicization of the Court. It moderates ideological swings and preserves both the appearance and the reality that the Supreme Court is truly a legal rather than a political institution.

Disturbingly, John Roberts's and Samuel Alito's actions on the Court now speak much louder than their words to Congress. During the past year, Roberts and Alito have repeatedly abandoned the principle of stare decisis, and they have done so in a particularly insidious manner. In a series of very important decisions, they have cynically pretended to honor precedent while actually jettisoning those precedents one after another.

The tactic, in short, is to purport to respect a precedent while in fact interpreting it into oblivion. Every first-year law student understands the technique. It works like this: "Appellant argues that Smith v. Jones governs the case before us. But Smith v. Jones arose out of an accident that occurred on a Tuesday. The accident in this case occurred on a Thursday. We do not overrule Smith v. Jones, but we limit it to accidents that occurr on Tuesdays." This illustration is, of course, a parody of the technique. But it captures the Roberts/Alito style of judicial craftsmanship.

Right now - I am so sickened by what is happening with these decisions being handed down. I am so disheartened by how little the Senate even pretended to care about the consequences of their vote. And here we are.

I hope the Gang of 14 is proud this week.

[terisan]

1. How can they or the ones who put Bush in office, be impeached ?

[KoKo]

2. There was some digging on Scalia....and maybe this will inspire some folks

to report more about what they know about some of his "side dealings" while on the court.

[3waygeek]

16. Perjury before the Senate is a crime,

and judges can be impeached for crimes -- just ask Alcee Hastings.

[Nikki Stone1]

3. I suggest a title change for the thread

Roberts and Alito lie to the Senate

You might have more people looking in

[Coexist]

4. you're probably right - I tried, but its too late

thanks, though.

[Nikki Stone1]

5. I think this thread is very important

So, I'll bump it when I can

[Toots]

14. But that in itself would be a lie

It is almost impossible to tell if they lied or not when they gave their opinion on how they would determine their rulings. Every case is different, yet there is much to indicate they misled at the very least..

[redqueen]

6. ...

:kick:

[robinlynne]

7. kick

[Nikki Stone1]

8. Yep. They lied about their intentions

:kick:

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. If Roberts breached stare decisis, would he ever be in a position where

he could publicly be asked why? And if he perjured himself during the hearings?

[loudsue]

10. The supremes need to be impeached. They CANNOT be allowed

to serve for the rest of their lives. We won't have a country left by then.

:kick:

[Coexist]

11. my worry is that the ones left

on the left are much older than the ones left on the right.

[in_cog_ni_to]

12. Isn't it interesting that we at DU knew they were lying. We knew they couldn't be trusted. We knew

they were hand picked from the Federalist Society and GROOMED for the job. We knew they shouldn't be confirmed because we knew where they would take this country. Why is it we knew these things and Congress didn't? Why did Congress fall for their bullshit testimony? Now it's too late. We have 50 years of this shit to put up with. Do you have any idea how much damage can be done in 50 YEARS? Look at what they've managed to destroy in less than 2 years time! This just makes me sick to my stomach.

Is Senate protocol really more important than our Constitution and the citizens of this country? The Senator's excuses were always, "It's the President's prerogative to choose who HE wants on the court and unless he sends us a complete RW ideologue, we must confirm them." HELLO! It was as clear as the nose on my face who those two were....RABID, RW Ideologues. I wonder what the Senators think of the rulings that have been handed down?

IDEOLOGUE>>>>>>

IDEOLOGUE>>>>>>

[Coexist]

13. what I hate is that SCOTUS makes decisions that affect regular people

in their daily lives - and yet Mrs. Alito's tears seemed to matter more to these lawmakers than his decisions in civil rights cases and the fact that is colleagues criticized him for ignoring precedent.



I mean, what the fuck.

[creeksneakers2]

15. Kicked!

Roberts and Alito lied their ways into office.

[Thothmes]

17. stare decisis

Not all its cracked up to be. Remember Plessy v, Ferguson was settled law. Glad they overurned that.

[tbyg52]

18. I see your point

How's this for a distinction? *That* was to benefit the *people*. What is going on lately is to benefit the *corporations*. (And the fundies who want to control all the people.)

[Phredicles]

19. "cynically pretended to honor precedent while actually jettisoning those precedents"

It's the same priciple as the Dear Leader brings to his signing statements, isn't it? He pretends to sign a bill into law while saying, "I don't have to do this if I don't feel like it". By the same token, these "justices" claim to be upholding precedent while in fact overturning it. Truly Orwellian.

[mmonk]

20. This is the legacy of the gang of 14.