So Much For "Settled Law"

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Court should not be bound to previous mistakes.

This is a good thing. Of course the Left finds it distressing.

Elena Kagan becomes latest liberal justice to sound alarm on precedent - CNNPolitics

 

[fncceo]

The legal principle of precedence, stare decisis, dates back to Roman Times. It has been part of Common Law since its inception.

For precedent to be overturned, the latter case must meet certain criteria to establish that the court is not dealing with the same facts as the precedent.

 

[bullwinkle]

The Court should not be bound to previous mistakes.

This is a good thing. Of course the Left finds it distressing.

Elena Kagan becomes latest liberal justice to sound alarm on precedent - CNNPolitics

What else is new? I expect next SCOTUS 5 will rule that subpoenas are a violation of rights and that the way to check questionable votes is to eliminate voting altogether. Oh, yeah..and that a President can declare himself President for life.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The Court should not be bound to previous mistakes.

This is a good thing. Of course the Left finds it distressing.

Elena Kagan becomes latest liberal justice to sound alarm on precedent - CNNPolitics

What else is new? I expect next SCOTUS 5 will rule that subpoenas are a violation of rights and that the way to check questionable votes is to eliminate voting altogether. Oh, yeah..and that a President can declare himself President for life.

Too funny. Why would they rule that?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

The legal principle of precedence, stare decisis, dates back to Roman Times. It has been part of Common Law since its inception.

For precedent to be overturned, the latter case must meet certain criteria to establish that the court is not dealing with the same facts as the precedent.

Au contraire, as the Court is quite capable of error via a number of avenues, any ruling can be revisited by a descendant Court, even under the same facts of the case.

 

[SavannahMann]

I do not understand the hysteria regarding overturned precedent.

In 1905 the Supreme Court decided in Lochner that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment to limit workers hours by law. Lochner v. New York - Wikipedia

Should we return to the first precedent? No limits on working hours for pilots or truck drivers? Or should we recognize and celebrate the case which overturned that precedent?

How about Bowers V. Hardwick which held that Anti-sodomy laws were just awesome. That was law until 2003 when it was overturned. Why was it right to overturn this decision, but wrong to overturn any other?

Pace v. Alabama? It made interracial marriage illegal. Why was it right to overturn this ruling?

In the end, it is the Constitution that is supposed to be the foundation of our laws, not the arcane and incorrect rulings of a Court.