Second, what theory of stare decisis is Orin employing here? ❋ Unknown (2010)
Dilan Esper: The application of stare decisis is part of the judicial power of the United States, which is exercised by the courts under Article III of the Constitution. ❋ Unknown (2010)
And obviously, stare decisis is not some simple, narrowly conceived ratiocination applied to prior case law. ❋ Unknown (2010)
The issue nearly 140 years of stare decisis is causing all kinds of angst for the Fourteenth Amendment case of MacDonald v. Chicago related to the vector for incorporation of the Second Amendment to the States .. ❋ Unknown (2010)
In the Supreme Court dissent on Casey, the justices who arguably wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade wrote “stare decisis is not … … a universal inexorable command”. ❋ Unknown (2009)
The application of stare decisis is part of the judicial power of the United States, which is exercised by the courts under Article III of the Constitution. ❋ Unknown (2010)
At his hearing, while restating the doctrine of stare decisis, Judge Alito repeatedly qualified his answers with the comment that stare decisis is not an “inexorable command.” ❋ Unknown (2009)
That aside, Professor Paulsen's post fails to recognize that there is value in stare decisis from a litigants 'perspective. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Disregarding stare decisis is as wise as disregarding history. ❋ Unknown (2007)
As I have quipped to my students, the doctrine of stare decisis is that courts adhere to their prior precedents except for when they don't. ❋ Unknown (2007)
(As stated in the original post, I think that this actually happens rarely, so that stare decisis is really more of a ruse than anything else.) 3. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Stare decisis is a reasoned doctrine that protects us from the whims of current thought and opinion. ❋ Unknown (2007)
But of course the doctrine of stare decisis is not taken seriously, and with good reason. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Usually, stare decisis is just a dishonest or disingenuous cover for a decision reached on other grounds. ❋ Unknown (2007)
Like Randy, I do not believe that stare decisis is an inexorable command when it is inconsistent with the Constitution's meaning, and unlike many liberal constitutionalists these days, I do not think that the best way of preserving the Constitution's guarantees is to force judges to swear at their confirmation hearings that they will respect precedent above all else. ❋ Unknown (2006)
Stare decisis is the practice of the court in honoring earlier court decisions. ❋ Unknown (2005)
The problem with stare decisis is that bad decisions engender more bad decisions, and there seems no way to overcome this. ❋ Unknown (2005)
As I'm sure you know, because we are set up to operate on a common law system, precedent and stare decisis is very important, indeed, crucial. ❋ Richard Nokes (2005)
However, the argument for reliance on stare decisis is itself applied inconsistently, since originalists do not think that all previous decisions are immune to originalist attack, just the ones that they think aren't too bad or that they actively support. ❋ Unknown (2003)
Where one [judge] follows [the decision] in a [previous] case is an example of stare decisis being applied. ❋ Ian 13 (2008)
