June 22, 2007 7:06 AM

No, you can't claim to be surprised....

(cross-posted to The Agonist)

Precedents Begin to Fall for Roberts Court

WASHINGTON, June 20 ‚Äö√Ñ√Æ No Supreme Court nominee could be confirmed these days without paying homage to the judicial doctrine of “stare decisis,” Latin for “to stand by things decided.” Yet experienced listeners have learned to take these professions of devotion to precedent “cum grano salis,” Latin for “with a grain of salt.” Both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. assured their Senate questioners at their confirmation hearings that they, too, respected precedent. So why were they on the majority side of a 5-to-4 decision last week declaring that a 45-year-old doctrine excusing people whose “unique circumstances” prevented them from meeting court filing deadlines was now “illegitimate”?

Remember when Chief Justice John Roberts was going through his confirmation hearings, and he paid homage to the legal doctrine of stare decisis?, which, in it’s simplest form is a respect for legal precedent? Remember when Justice Samuel Alito sat before the Senate Judiciary commit and professed his belief in stare decisis? Well, guess what, y’all? If you actually believed, even for a fleeting moment, that Alito and Roberts were telling the truth, there’s a bridge in Brooklyn with your name on it.

Here’s a refresher course in political reality: REPUBLICANS LIE. If we’ve learned nothing else in the past six-plus years, it’s that Republicans will say and do anything they can get away with in order to grasp power. Once in power, they will then begin to force their narrow, intolerant, religious agenda down the throats of the majority of Americans who neither think, act, nor believe as they do. Yet, somehow, they continue to get elected.

Behold, the power of propaganda….

So, what is stare decisis? And why is it such an important concept? Well, as the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et non quieta movere ‚Äö√Ñ√Æ “to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.” Consider the word “decisis.” The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not “to stand by or keep to what was said.” Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi ‚Äö√Ñ√Æ “to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases.” Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides ‚Äö√Ñ√Æ for the “what,” not for the “why,” and not for the “how.” Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.

The short version is that stare decisis stands for the respect for legal precedent- decisions that have been handed down previously. Respect for precedent means that judges won’t be changing settled law depending on the political/religious/ideological viewpoint that happens to be in fashion at the moment.

This isn’t to say that law cannot and should not adapt to meet the changing needs of American society. Far from it. But the recognition and acceptance of stare decisis has generally prevented the Supreme Court from going back in time and legislating wholesale social change from the bench as the political and ideological makeup of the Court changes.

Roberts and Alito represent a very simple reality that holds true for much of BushWorld. Right-wingers will do and say ANYTHING to gain power. Once in office, they then will ignore whatever promises and/or commitments they might have made in order to do the bidding of their neoConservative masters. The problem with the Supreme Court is that, since none of the Justices are elected and their appointments are lifetime sinecures, we’re stuck with them until they retire or die. This means that perhaps the largest and most enduring legacy of Our Glorious and Benevolent Leader © will be a Supreme Court heavily involved in imposing a far Right-wing, neoConservative legal and moral landscape upon America.

Ah yes, The Worst President EVER © …the gift that will keep on giving long after 1.20.09.

Those 54-million-plus of y’all who voted for King George the Worst © in 2000 and 2004 ought to be proud of yourself. Truly.

STILL GLAD YOU VOTED REPUBLICAN??

blog comments powered by Disqus

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Jack Cluth published on June 22, 2007 7:06 AM.

Every now and again, sanity prevails was the previous entry in this blog.

Chicks love a man in uniform.... is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Contact Me

Powered by Movable Type 5.12