Blindly following precedent without reason, maybe…but applying the law without any form of consistency isn’t helpful either. Rulings need to be fair, across the board. They can’t wildly swing from one precedent to another, depending on the individual whims of whichever judge is currently deciding a case.
That’s exactly what’s happening now, with the current Supreme Court…and look at how that’s going.
I wasn’t suggesting it, that phrase is an older conservative trope from legal blog from 20 years ago that is clearly motivating the current Supreme Court. (The current strict scrutiny podcast references it too in a clearly sarcastic tone as well)
That’s why I responded the way I did to the guy that said, “Stare Decisis is for suckers”.
The current Supreme Court is not adhering to precedent. Without that adherence, no decision is final. Every established law can simply be reinterpreted again and again, without any consistency.
Stare Decisis is for suckers.
Blindly following precedent without reason, maybe…but applying the law without any form of consistency isn’t helpful either. Rulings need to be fair, across the board. They can’t wildly swing from one precedent to another, depending on the individual whims of whichever judge is currently deciding a case.
That’s exactly what’s happening now, with the current Supreme Court…and look at how that’s going.
I wasn’t suggesting it, that phrase is an older conservative trope from legal blog from 20 years ago that is clearly motivating the current Supreme Court. (The current strict scrutiny podcast references it too in a clearly sarcastic tone as well)
They can and they are.
That’s why I responded the way I did to the guy that said, “Stare Decisis is for suckers”.
The current Supreme Court is not adhering to precedent. Without that adherence, no decision is final. Every established law can simply be reinterpreted again and again, without any consistency.