Stare Decisis is lawyer speak (Latin) for a common, well used, and old legal doctrine. Courts should rule that same way on the same issue. If the courts make a new and different ruling, a new and different principle, each time a case comes before them. The result is nobody knows what the law is, because the courts rule differently each time. Stare Decisis, accepted by all US courts, stabilizes that law. The principle says to rule the same way as you ruled last time. This requires a bit of research (quite a bit actually) to find out how all of our various courts ruled on an issue, any time in the past. But it allows citizens and their lawyers to know what to expect when (or if) they go to court.
US courts mostly stick with Stare Decisis. The few important exceptions make the history books, Marberry vs Madison, Dred Scott, Plessy vs Furguson, Row vs Wade. It is probably a good idea that we have so few “turn existing law upside down” cases. As a matter of process, to my mind, changes in policy should be made by the elected legislatures, not a handful (often only one) unelected judge[s].
Congress is holding hearings on Judge Jackson to become a supreme court judge. A lot of questions are about where she stands on Stare Decisis. Her answers don’t really tell me where she is coming from.
No comments:
Post a Comment