billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,385
|
Post by billisonboard on May 7, 2021 18:44:39 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. Hmmm already answered in reply #29 "Stare decisis is policy, but only if it doesn't contravene with the ordinary principles of justice."Now we have billisonboard re-posting the same opinion and thinking that my answer will be different. Interesting contrast from the target audience. My third answer will be 'because' also.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,385
|
Post by billisonboard on May 8, 2021 9:49:13 GMT -5
How stare decisis can impact the average citizen: Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. link Great protection. But how does the average citizen have any idea what is "unreasonable" and what is "probable cause"? One way that could be determined is to have a police officer decide on their own in the moment if what they are thinking of doing is reasonable and they do have good cause to do it. If they do go ahead with a search and seize something, then it will be up to lawyers to consider if the situation presented as reasonable and with probable cause based on their view of those things. Following that, a judge becomes involved and applies their sense of reasonableness and probable cause. Possibly multiple appellate judges would subsequently make their independent determination. A second way this could play out is for a police officer to be trained on principles developed over the years in multiple court ruling of what is reasonable and constitutes probable cause, then apply them in each situation they encounter. Lawyers and judges can also use those principles to rule on cases. As a citizen, I appreciate that I can have a sense of what my rights under the 4th Amendment should look like in a real time situation and not be held to the independent individual view of whichever police officer/lawyers/judges I happen to face. Stare decisis works for me.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2021 19:39:40 GMT -5
Anyone still think Roe v Wade is safe from being overturned? safe? no. it has really never been "safe". but I am still not convinced it will be overturned.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2021 19:41:07 GMT -5
I am not convinced that ANYONE is beyond redemption. even Trump.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 8, 2021 19:44:37 GMT -5
interesting thread. thanks for posting.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,385
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 2:10:29 GMT -5
How stare decisis can impact the average citizen: Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. link Great protection. But how does the average citizen have any idea what is "unreasonable" and what is "probable cause"? One way that could be determined is to have a police officer decide on their own in the moment if what they are thinking of doing is reasonable and they do have good cause to do it. If they do go ahead with a search and seize something, then it will be up to lawyers to consider if the situation presented as reasonable and with probable cause based on their view of those things. Following that, a judge becomes involved and applies their sense of reasonableness and probable cause. Possibly multiple appellate judges would subsequently make their independent determination. A second way this could play out is for a police officer to be trained on principles developed over the years in multiple court ruling of what is reasonable and constitutes probable cause, then apply them in each situation they encounter. Lawyers and judges can also use those principles to rule on cases. As a citizen, I appreciate that I can have a sense of what my rights under the 4th Amendment should look like in a real time situation and not be held to the independent individual view of whichever police officer/lawyers/judges I happen to face. Stare decisis works for me. That's quite wonderful for warrants of search and seizure. Freedom from excessive intrusion, governed by case law standards, seems like a good way to go. How does that apply to this case in the op, where the convict murdered his own grandfather ? Stare decisis, or well reasoned thoughts on the merits of the case ? "governed by" is what stare decisis does. The sharp turn from precedence concerning the Constitutional question of cruel and unusual punishment seemed unnecessary in the case in the OP.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,385
|
Post by billisonboard on May 9, 2021 8:31:42 GMT -5
"governed by" is what stare decisis does. The sharp turn from precedence concerning the Constitutional question of cruel and unusual punishment seemed unnecessary in the case in the OP. . It can seem like a lot of things when presented by CNN. Even "staggering deviation". However, I'm going with well thought out reasoning, and using evidence and merits of that individual case. Stare decisis is policy, but only if it doesn't contravene with the ordinary principles of justice. To clarify, the Supreme Court case was about what question should be asked when a court is considering sentencing a person who committed a crime as a juvenile, specifically the sentence of "life without parole". A standard had been established that looking directly at the question, "Is there any possibility of rehabilitation?" was required before a judge tossed the person in prison and threw away the key. This case lowered that standard to a more generic "Did you take into account it was a kid?" The case wasn't about what was the appropriate sentence for this individual based on evidence and merits of this individual case. Life without parole is a statement that we have given up all hope that an individual can live outside of prison. That is a harsh declaration to make concerning a young person. Life with the possibility of parole is a more hopeful sentence. Doesn't mean the person will get there but considering whether there is a chance of rehabilitation seems just to me.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,327
|
Post by thyme4change on May 13, 2021 18:46:44 GMT -5
Anyone still think Roe v Wade is safe from being overturned? "Originalist" is code for 'willing to set aside precedent to get the predetermined answer'. Also "Everyone is wrong, except me"
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 74,870
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on May 14, 2021 1:12:41 GMT -5
Anyone still think Roe v Wade is safe from being overturned? "Originalist" is code for 'willing to set aside precedent to get the predetermined answer'. Also "Everyone is wrong, except me" how about "tonight we're going to party like it's 1699"?
|
|