We live in a Kakistocracy

[Diuretic]

lol... but it doesn't even do that!!!

I know of no other decision which is specifically held by the Court to have no precedential value, though there have been others narrowly limited to their facts. Bush v Gore didn't even do that. If the same facts were before the Court again, it divested itself of the obligation to apply that earlier decision.

But give the doctrine of stare decisis, how can it do that? I mean what if an exact or very, very similar set of circumstances arises in the future? Is the Supreme Court going to say, "well of course back then the Court said that its decision shouldn't apply in future? Can it? It just doesn't make sense to me. I don't know how it works here but in our superior courts when the judge gives directions/decision we look for the ratio and try to separate it out from the obiter, the ratio of course being the important bit.

Did the US Sup Ct in this case decide that its decision, the guts of the decision, was just obiter?

 

[Annie]

Given that the Supreme Court only grants cert when there's a question that requires it to set precedent, every decision is binding on every other Court.

.... except in Bush v Gore, of course....

If the SCOTUS was correct, why limit the decision to that case only? Wouldn't it apply to every similar case... unless it was a sham?

As to the rest of what you said, I'm not quite certain why you think it's relevant to the issue of precedent that the Court will remand cases with instructions?

Ok, so there is no turning back any SCOTUS decisions, right. True precedents are not established until they are considered, let's say 'bedrock', such as Brown V. Board of Ed.; Marbury V. Madison; etc. Roe V. Wade is not precedent, as it most likely will be challenged down the line.