billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 23, 2021 19:51:46 GMT -5
Supreme Court's staggering deviation from precedentMost stunning, however, is the manner in which the Court got there, by casting aside years of precedent with the stroke of a pen. Yesterday's decision was a frightening reminder of how easily the Court can speak out of both sides of its mouth: claiming fidelity to its own past decisions, while simultaneously gutting them. First of more to come?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 23, 2021 20:11:53 GMT -5
Good argument to add more justices to the U.S. Supreme court.
|
|
laterbloomer
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 26, 2018 0:50:42 GMT -5
Posts: 4,350
|
Post by laterbloomer on Apr 23, 2021 21:52:37 GMT -5
What decision? I missed it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 23, 2021 21:59:40 GMT -5
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,350
|
Post by NastyWoman on Apr 24, 2021 11:59:19 GMT -5
Anyone still think Roe v Wade is safe from being overturned?
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,363
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Apr 24, 2021 12:02:47 GMT -5
Unacceptable. One of the mainstays of the courts has been adherence to precedent. If they try & change previous decisions, none of the previous decisions are safe from being overturned. Although I am sure there are those in the Republican Party are chomping at the bit to bring back the 1800's.
|
|
teen persuasion
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:49 GMT -5
Posts: 4,043
|
Post by teen persuasion on Apr 24, 2021 12:47:57 GMT -5
I saw lots on Twitter discussing the irony of Kavanaugh being ok with life-without-parole for youthful offenders.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 24, 2021 13:01:38 GMT -5
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 24, 2021 13:16:47 GMT -5
The nature of the case was about exactly what you are asking for here, to know more about his potential to turn his life around before sentencing him to life without parole.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 24, 2021 13:32:33 GMT -5
The nature of the case was about exactly what you are asking for here, to know more about his potential to turn his life around before sentencing him to life without parole. From what I've found he got a raw deal in his start in life, and unfortunately I think that makes the odds of him not resorting to violence and possibly killing someone low if he was released. The one article I found notes it was a steak knife. If it was a serrated steak knife that takes some dedication to both push it in and pull it out of someone. And if the one article is to be believed, he just got another knife after the first one broke. If he had shot the grandfather once and he died that would be one decision. In this case he made at least nine decisions to stab and kill his grandfather. www.ksat.com/news/politics/2021/04/22/high-court-moves-away-from-leniency-for-minors-who-murder/The specific case before the justices involved Mississippi inmate Brett Jones, who was 15 and living with his grandparents when he fatally stabbed his grandfather. The two had a fight in the home’s kitchen after Bertis Jones found his grandson’s girlfriend in his grandson’s bedroom. Brett Jones, who was using a knife to make a sandwich before the fight, stabbed his grandfather first with that knife and then, when it broke, with a different knife. sports.yahoo.com/teenager-made-mistake-brett-kavanaugh-194032319.htmlBrett Jones celebrated his fifteenth birthday 23 days before he killed his grandfather. His previous fourteen years were marked by an all too common tangle of pathology, neglect, violence and mental illness. His father was an abusive alcoholic who knocked out his mother’s teeth and broke her nose multiple times. His stepfather appeared to be worse, physically abusing Brett and his brother with switches, belts and a paddle he called “The Punisher.” He rarely called Brett and his brother by name, preferring “little motherf***ers.”
Finally, at fourteen, Brett had enough: He took a swing at his stepfather and split open his ear. The police were called; Brett, and not the abusive stepfather, was placed under arrest. The stepfather threatened to throw Brett’s mother and brother out of the house unless Brett was sent away, so his grandparents came to Florida and took Brett to their home in Mississippi. After the move, Brett no longer had access to the medicine he had been taking for severe depression and hallucinations.
Brett’s girlfriend followed him from Florida to Mississippi. His grandfather ordered her out and Brett and his grandfather began to argue, which led to pushing and his grandfather trying to hit him. Brett stabbed his grandfather with a steak knife. His grandfather came at him again and the fight continued. Brett then stabbed his grandfather eight times and killed him.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by haapai on Apr 24, 2021 13:39:06 GMT -5
He ain't no juvenile! He's 30! If you can tell me how old he was when he committed a similar crime, and a timeline of what he has done and where he's been spending his nights, I might give life without parole for juveniles a bit of thought, but what you have linked is short, sensationalist, sentimental, throne-reading.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by haapai on Apr 24, 2021 13:45:11 GMT -5
The nature of the case was about exactly what you are asking for here, to know more about his potential to turn his life around before sentencing him to life without parole. From what I've found he got a raw deal in his start in life, and unfortunately I think that makes the odds of him not resorting to violence and possibly killing someone low if he was released. The one article I found notes it was a steak knife. If it was a serrated steak knife that takes some dedication to both push it in and pull it out of someone. And if the one article is to be believed, he just got another knife after the first one broke. If he had shot the grandfather once and he died that would be one decision. In this case he made at least nine decisions to stab and kill his grandfather. www.ksat.com/news/politics/2021/04/22/high-court-moves-away-from-leniency-for-minors-who-murder/The specific case before the justices involved Mississippi inmate Brett Jones, who was 15 and living with his grandparents when he fatally stabbed his grandfather. The two had a fight in the home’s kitchen after Bertis Jones found his grandson’s girlfriend in his grandson’s bedroom. Brett Jones, who was using a knife to make a sandwich before the fight, stabbed his grandfather first with that knife and then, when it broke, with a different knife. sports.yahoo.com/teenager-made-mistake-brett-kavanaugh-194032319.htmlBrett Jones celebrated his fifteenth birthday 23 days before he killed his grandfather. His previous fourteen years were marked by an all too common tangle of pathology, neglect, violence and mental illness. His father was an abusive alcoholic who knocked out his mother’s teeth and broke her nose multiple times. His stepfather appeared to be worse, physically abusing Brett and his brother with switches, belts and a paddle he called “The Punisher.” He rarely called Brett and his brother by name, preferring “little motherf***ers.”
Finally, at fourteen, Brett had enough: He took a swing at his stepfather and split open his ear. The police were called; Brett, and not the abusive stepfather, was placed under arrest. The stepfather threatened to throw Brett’s mother and brother out of the house unless Brett was sent away, so his grandparents came to Florida and took Brett to their home in Mississippi. After the move, Brett no longer had access to the medicine he had been taking for severe depression and hallucinations.
Brett’s girlfriend followed him from Florida to Mississippi. His grandfather ordered her out and Brett and his grandfather began to argue, which led to pushing and his grandfather trying to hit him. Brett stabbed his grandfather with a steak knife. His grandfather came at him again and the fight continued. Brett then stabbed his grandfather eight times and killed him.You are conflating two different people. This is kinda cheap. Did you really mistake one for the other or are you thinking that this is fair play>
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 24, 2021 13:46:55 GMT -5
He ain't no juvenile! He's 30! If you can tell me how old he was when he committed a similar crime, and a timeline of what he has done and where he's been spending his nights, I might give life without parole for juveniles a bit of thought, but what you have linked is short, sensationalist, sentimental, throne-reading.
Life without parole comment is for the guy who followed the cleaning woman into her room and killed her just because. That guy has a long rap sheet which includes strangling.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 24, 2021 13:49:01 GMT -5
From what I've found he got a raw deal in his start in life, and unfortunately I think that makes the odds of him not resorting to violence and possibly killing someone low if he was released. The one article I found notes it was a steak knife. If it was a serrated steak knife that takes some dedication to both push it in and pull it out of someone. And if the one article is to be believed, he just got another knife after the first one broke. If he had shot the grandfather once and he died that would be one decision. In this case he made at least nine decisions to stab and kill his grandfather. www.ksat.com/news/politics/2021/04/22/high-court-moves-away-from-leniency-for-minors-who-murder/The specific case before the justices involved Mississippi inmate Brett Jones, who was 15 and living with his grandparents when he fatally stabbed his grandfather. The two had a fight in the home’s kitchen after Bertis Jones found his grandson’s girlfriend in his grandson’s bedroom. Brett Jones, who was using a knife to make a sandwich before the fight, stabbed his grandfather first with that knife and then, when it broke, with a different knife. sports.yahoo.com/teenager-made-mistake-brett-kavanaugh-194032319.htmlBrett Jones celebrated his fifteenth birthday 23 days before he killed his grandfather. His previous fourteen years were marked by an all too common tangle of pathology, neglect, violence and mental illness. His father was an abusive alcoholic who knocked out his mother’s teeth and broke her nose multiple times. His stepfather appeared to be worse, physically abusing Brett and his brother with switches, belts and a paddle he called “The Punisher.” He rarely called Brett and his brother by name, preferring “little motherf***ers.”
Finally, at fourteen, Brett had enough: He took a swing at his stepfather and split open his ear. The police were called; Brett, and not the abusive stepfather, was placed under arrest. The stepfather threatened to throw Brett’s mother and brother out of the house unless Brett was sent away, so his grandparents came to Florida and took Brett to their home in Mississippi. After the move, Brett no longer had access to the medicine he had been taking for severe depression and hallucinations.
Brett’s girlfriend followed him from Florida to Mississippi. His grandfather ordered her out and Brett and his grandfather began to argue, which led to pushing and his grandfather trying to hit him. Brett stabbed his grandfather with a steak knife. His grandfather came at him again and the fight continued. Brett then stabbed his grandfather eight times and killed him.You are conflating two different people. This is kinda cheap. Did you really mistake one for the other or are you thinking that this is fair play> I'm not conflating two different people. Unless you can show those articles refer to different Brett Joneses.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by haapai on Apr 24, 2021 13:57:53 GMT -5
You are conflating two different people. This is kinda cheap. Did you really mistake one for the other or are you thinking that this is fair play> I'm not conflating two different people. Unless you can show those articles refer to different Brett Joneses. The first link regards a guy named Stephen Havrilka.
He's not a nice guy. He is legitimately terrifying. But I don't think that his knick-name was "Brett Jones".
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 24, 2021 14:03:32 GMT -5
I'm not conflating two different people. Unless you can show those articles refer to different Brett Joneses. The first link regards a guy named Stephen Havrilka.
He's not a nice guy. He is legitimately terrifying. But I don't think that his knick-name was "Brett Jones".
The first link was about precedence and a Supreme Court rule. The second link was about the case involved in that Supreme Court ruling. Then a third link was posted having nothing about the first two.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 24, 2021 14:07:00 GMT -5
I'm not conflating two different people. Unless you can show those articles refer to different Brett Joneses. The first link regards a guy named Stephen Havrilka.
He's not a nice guy. He is legitimately terrifying. But I don't think that his knick-name was "Brett Jones".
I didn't say it was. I asked have you read this yet because that particular story had been on my mind. Brett Jones is in prison, so it didn't occur to me someone would not see them as separate stories or conclude I didn't know they were different people. Unfortunately early programming is hard to shake without the complications of psych meds.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by haapai on Apr 24, 2021 14:08:39 GMT -5
I'm quoting this thing because I fear that you may be editing it soon. You definitely linked me to stories regarding two different awful, violent human beings with juvenile records.
|
|
haapai
Junior Associate
Character
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 20:40:06 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by haapai on Apr 24, 2021 14:27:41 GMT -5
Is it possible to reboot this thread after that amazing display of <I don't know what>? Will quoting the first paragraph of bill's link help? Here it is. It's from CNN. (I've edited out errata like photo credits and weird stuff that shows up when what you paste includes a picture)
For nearly two decades, the Supreme Court has established more leniency toward children convicted of violent crimes, in line with the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This trend came to an abrupt stop on Thursday, with the Court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi that judges do not need to find a juvenile murderer to have a hope of rehabilitation before sentencing them to die in prison.
Most stunning, however, is the manner in which the Court got there, by casting aside years of precedent with the stroke of a pen. Yesterday's decision was a frightening reminder of how easily the Court can speak out of both sides of its mouth: claiming fidelity to its own past decisions, while simultaneously gutting them.
Courts are governed by the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for "to stand by things decided." In short, stare decisis is the fundamental doctrine that precedent matters, and that a court will stand by its rulings on issues previously brought before it. As the Supreme Court has said, stare decisis "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Such predictability is critical for helping the public understand what its rights are.
Can we please, please, reboot and start talking about the speed with which precedence is being overturned and the apparent embrace of cruelty and kicking down that seems to be involved?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 24, 2021 14:45:37 GMT -5
(EDIT: got distracted typing this and didn't see haapai previous reply before posting it, but will leave it) Clearly there have been adults who have committed acts that demonstrate we need to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. Clearly there have been juveniles who have committed acts that demonstrate we likely need to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. The question before the Supreme Court was whether courts should have to make a specific finding that any such juvenile can not rehabilitated before being sentenced to life without parole. In previous Supreme Court rulings there were requirements for courts to go to extra lengths before tossing a juvenile in prison and throwing away the key. This case says such lengths aren't necessay, effectively overturning precedence. AND There has been an open question of whether this current make-up of the Court will follow precedence or will be likely to overturning it. This case suggests that they aren't afraid to overturning it. This has serious implications for cases like Roe v Wade. Therefore I started a thread with the idea of discussing that issue. Not that I can control it but I didn't intend it to be a "who can find the worst bad guy" thread.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 24, 2021 14:47:10 GMT -5
The first link regards a guy named Stephen Havrilka.
He's not a nice guy. He is legitimately terrifying. But I don't think that his knick-name was "Brett Jones".
The first link was about precedence and a Supreme Court rule. The second link was about the case involved in that Supreme Court ruling. Then a third link was posted having nothing about the first two. Lately there have been so many bad people stories in the news they are sticking with me. The Supreme Court should have heard his case. They would certainly have more time and resources to hear things than me doing internet research. Here's another link on Brett Jones if people want to check it out. www.magnoliastatelive.com/2020/10/21/mississippi-mans-case-could-affect-fate-of-hundreds-of-juvenile-who-face-life-in-prison/
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 24, 2021 14:49:57 GMT -5
Is it possible to reboot this thread after that amazing display of ? Will quoting the first paragraph of bill's link help? Here it is. It's from CNN. (I've edited out errata like photo credits and weird stuff that shows up when what you paste includes a picture)
For nearly two decades, the Supreme Court has established more leniency toward children convicted of violent crimes, in line with the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This trend came to an abrupt stop on Thursday, with the Court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi that judges do not need to find a juvenile murderer to have a hope of rehabilitation before sentencing them to die in prison.
Most stunning, however, is the manner in which the Court got there, by casting aside years of precedent with the stroke of a pen. Yesterday's decision was a frightening reminder of how easily the Court can speak out of both sides of its mouth: claiming fidelity to its own past decisions, while simultaneously gutting them.
Courts are governed by the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for "to stand by things decided." In short, stare decisis is the fundamental doctrine that precedent matters, and that a court will stand by its rulings on issues previously brought before it. As the Supreme Court has said, stare decisis "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Such predictability is critical for helping the public understand what its rights are.
Can we please, please, reboot and start talking about the speed with which precedence is being overturned and the apparent embrace of cruelty and kicking down that seems to be involved?
We could, except you seem to want to enshrine my off topic URL and not let go much like Kavanaugh.[/i]
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 39,694
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Apr 24, 2021 15:05:22 GMT -5
(EDIT: got distracted typing this and didn't see haapai previous reply before posting it, but will leave it) Clearly there have been adults who have committed acts that demonstrate we need to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. Clearly there have been juveniles who have committed acts that demonstrate we likely need to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. The question before the Supreme Court was whether courts should have to make a specific finding that any such juvenile can not rehabilitated before being sentenced to life without parole. In previous Supreme Court rulings there were requirements for courts to go to extra lengths before tossing a juvenile in prison and throwing away the key. This case says such lengths aren't necessay, effectively overturning precedence. AND There has been an open question of whether this current make-up of the Court will follow precedence or will be likely to overturning it. This case suggests that they aren't afraid to overturning it. This has serious implications for cases like Roe v Wade. Therefore I started a thread with the idea of discussing that issue. Not that I can control it but I didn't intend it to be a "who can find the worst bad guy" thread. Trump is good at reading people who will cave to him and are willing to break laws. I would guess the latter is one of the things he looked for when looking for a Supreme court nominee. Trump IMO created this court with the intention of overturning Roe v Wade. So I am almost certain he picked people who were very willing to ignore precedent and overturn them when they wanted to.
|
|
busymom
Distinguished Associate
Why is the rum always gone? Oh...that's why.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 21:09:36 GMT -5
Posts: 28,363
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IPauJ5.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Name Color: 0D317F
Mini-Profile Text Color: 0D317F
|
Post by busymom on Apr 24, 2021 16:31:19 GMT -5
(EDIT: got distracted typing this and didn't see haapai previous reply before posting it, but will leave it) Clearly there have been adults who have committed acts that demonstrate we need to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. Clearly there have been juveniles who have committed acts that demonstrate we likely need to keep them locked up for the rest of their lives. The question before the Supreme Court was whether courts should have to make a specific finding that any such juvenile can not rehabilitated before being sentenced to life without parole. In previous Supreme Court rulings there were requirements for courts to go to extra lengths before tossing a juvenile in prison and throwing away the key. This case says such lengths aren't necessay, effectively overturning precedence. AND There has been an open question of whether this current make-up of the Court will follow precedence or will be likely to overturning it. This case suggests that they aren't afraid to overturning it. This has serious implications for cases like Roe v Wade. Therefore I started a thread with the idea of discussing that issue. Not that I can control it but I didn't intend it to be a "who can find the worst bad guy" thread. Trump is good at reading people who will cave to him and are willing to break laws. I would guess the latter is one of the things he looked for when looking for a Supreme court nominee. Trump IMO created this court with the intention of overturning Roe v Wade. So I am almost certain he picked people who were very willing to ignore precedent and overturn them when they wanted to. I think the court he put together has a much more sinister role. Basically, that he could do anything while in office, and they would either rubber stamp it, or look the other way. JMHO.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,436
|
Post by Tennesseer on Apr 25, 2021 9:29:30 GMT -5
The LA Times Letters to the Editor: The Supreme Court's life without parole ruling is painfully ironicTo the editor: The Supreme Court decision upholding a life sentence with no possibility of parole for a defendant who was 15 when he killed his grandfather is notable for several reasons. Earlier Supreme Court decisions said that such sentences should be extremely rare and limited to cases where the judge deemed the defendant "permanently incorrigible." Furthermore, such sentences are more common in southern states like Louisiana and Mississippi, and a staggering 70% of juveniles receiving life without parole are people of color. Lastly, the fact that five conservative judges chose Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh to speak for the court in this case is painfully ironic. The message that children who commit grave offenses might not deserve a second chance for redemption was delivered by the privileged former teenage beer drinker himself. Ramona Saenz, Alhambra Link to article here: link
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on May 7, 2021 10:41:29 GMT -5
Supreme Court's staggering deviation from precedentMost stunning, however, is the manner in which the Court got there, by casting aside years of precedent with the stroke of a pen. Yesterday's decision was a frightening reminder of how easily the Court can speak out of both sides of its mouth: claiming fidelity to its own past decisions, while simultaneously gutting them. First of more to come? Could be more coming. Cases should be ruled on the merits of evidence presented, not stare decisis. More stir up partisan shit, cable news nonsense at best, with this one. Once a case reaches the Supreme Court level, it is about much more than the facts of that single case. From the link: Courts are governed by the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for "to stand by things decided." In short, stare decisis is the fundamental doctrine that precedent matters, and that a court will stand by its rulings on issues previously brought before it. As the Supreme Court has said, stare decisis "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Such predictability is critical for helping the public understand what its rights are.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on May 7, 2021 11:13:03 GMT -5
Once a case reaches the Supreme Court level, it is about much more than the facts of that single case. From the link: Courts are governed by the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for "to stand by things decided." In short, stare decisis is the fundamental doctrine that precedent matters, and that a court will stand by its rulings on issues previously brought before it. As the Supreme Court has said, stare decisis "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Such predictability is critical for helping the public understand what its rights are. If they are governed by this how can a decision not follow the same.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on May 7, 2021 12:25:34 GMT -5
That's the fun with CNN bs, easy to point out. Stare decisis is policy, but only if it doesn't contravene with the ordinary principles of justice. As in my previous post's mention of 'merits' of said case. Hardly a 'staggering deviation'. Someone has commercials to sell along with a target audience. There have been a handful of previous decisions in the 200 plus years of Supreme Court history that were so rooted in antiquated thinking that they were unjust and their precedence needed to be overruled in one swift blow. But only a small few. I do think the author of the link piece offered a thought provoking opinion, even if somewhat overstated.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on May 7, 2021 17:57:23 GMT -5
There have been a handful of previous decisions in the 200 plus years of Supreme Court history that were so rooted in antiquated thinking that they were unjust and their precedence needed to be overruled in one swift blow. But only a small few. I do think the author of the link piece offered a thought provoking opinion, even if somewhat overstated. Cases should be ruled on the merits of evidence presented, not stare decisis. Why?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,456
|
Post by billisonboard on May 7, 2021 18:27:14 GMT -5
Hmmmm. The opinion quoted the Supreme Court's view. I repost it here: Courts are governed by the doctrine of stare decisis, Latin for "to stand by things decided." In short, stare decisis is the fundamental doctrine that precedent matters, and that a court will stand by its rulings on issues previously brought before it. As the Supreme Court has said, stare decisis "promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process." Such predictability is critical for helping the public understand what its rights are. We now have the @x view. Interesting contrast.
|
|