Talk:Stare decisis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm only aware of two countries (U.K. and China) where the legislature acts as the highest court.

The provision that the legislature had the final power to interpret laws was very common in Soviet style constitutions. And I suspect that it might be in a few places. (Maybe Cuba and North Korea, I haven't looked). Also, the French Court of Cassation isn't now part of the legislature, but it started out that way.

The China case is interesting because it's the first Soviet derived constitution in which the power actually means something.

Not sure that in practice in the UK the highest court is part of the legislature. References to the House Of Lords as a court nowadays refer to to the Judicial Committee of the HoL. Although members of the HoL the Law Lords cannot vote. This is just another of the gaps between theory and practice in the UK constitution - the plans to form a supreme court should bring the two closer together.

---

This doesn't seem to have much to do with stare decisis

This helps business owners enter into new type of commerce. However the courts are often used as a means to stall deals gone bad as most business owners are aware that the time and expense of litigating an issue may mean that the proposed project may not be resolved for years until the case goes through the steps of discovery, pretrial motions, trial, appeal through several levels of appellate courts and then finally to collection or enforcement proceedings; indeed it is doubtful that a case will go through all these stages as litigants settle most cases long before they reach the end stages of an appeal to precedent.

Well I think there is an idea in there that is related to the realities of appellate practice and transactional lawyering. Uncertainly in the law breeds risk in the marketplace. The doctrine of stare decisis as it is applies through precedents helps to some degree in making the rules of the game (in commerce, or even in family law) known. The idea there can certainly be expressed in a clearer and more well written manner. Alex756

Contents 1 Judges -> legislators 2 Originalism -- bias/POV 3 Alito 4 We need to get rid of the blog garbage about Clarence Thomas

[edit] Judges -> legislators

The argument most often used against the system is that it is undemocratic as it allows unelected judges to make law.

I think you guys wanted to say "legislators". Only some U.S. state judges are elected (what a lousy 19th century populist system!). Most judges in other parts of the world are not elected by uneducated beer-drinking wife-beating voters. :) -- Toytoy 23:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Originalism -- bias/POV

Selectively quoting from the relevant section:

Likewise, on the other side of the debate, it is almost impossible to determine from whence Justice Douglas pulled his opinion for the court in Griswold v. Connecticut; it cannot be supported by precedent, and so there seems to be broad bipartisan consensus in American constitutional law that stare decisis should be considered inviolate, provided it agrees with your point of view, and discarded (or actively overruled) in all other cases.

This just seems unprofessional and POV. Edits needed [the entire section was added 11 Aug by a Simon Dodd]? Majromax 21:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

That paragraph was just so POV that I removed it. If someone thinks they can make it NPOV, feel free to restore it in a revised form. Clement Cherlin 20:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

POV statements still remain in the Originalism section: "Originalism - the doctrine that holds that the meaning of a written text must be applied..." seems to me rather biased in favor of Originalism as the supreme method of interpretation. How many doctrines of interpretation are there that don't feel 'the meaning of a written text must be applied'? Presenting the definition without any nuance, In my view, is not a NPOV. Need there even be a definition of Originalism in the sentence? I don't plan to remove it unless there is a concurrence on the matter. Vonsnip 02:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alito

Can someone add relevant material on Stare Decisis wrt to the Alito hearings?

Pizzadeliveryboy 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We need to get rid of the blog garbage about Clarence Thomas

I follow the legal newspapers closely and NO ONE has quoted that blogger's statement. Even if it's funny and probably true, it's not a well-known comment on Thomas and it's definitely not in proper encyclopedic style. We need to get it out of this article. --Coolcaesar 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

On 22 June 2006, the following language was deleted:

For this reason, Justice Thomas is viewed by many legal conservatives as the purest originalist on the Suprenme [sic] Court. One blawger has even coined a phrase in Justice Thomas's honor: "Stare decisis is fo' suckas!" [footnote omitted]

First, the phrase "is viewed by many legal conservatives" is an example of "weasel words". Second, while it may be interesting that Justice Thomas is viewed by certain unspecified persons as the "purest" originalist (presumably implying that there are variations and gradations of "purity" with respect to originalism, and that Thomas's "purity" is somehow notable for purposes of an article on stare decisis), this is unverifiable. Third, the coining of a humorous phrase by a "blawger" (web logger) who is apparently at best a tertiary source for information about the legal doctrine of stare decisis is in my opinion tangential in the extreme with respect to an encyclopedia article on the topic. This isn't even presented as Justice Thomas's out of court statement; it's a coinage by a blogger. Yours, Famspear 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)