[Dog Gone]

Yeah, there's those little things called stare decisis and res judicata that they teach in all law schools, except in Alabama it seems.

[inquest]

As for stare decisis, read the article more closely:

"After all, Roper itself was established as new U.S. Supreme Court 'precedent' only because the Missouri Supreme Court refused to follow prior precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court used the appeal resulting from the Missouri decision to overturn its previous precedent and declined to rebuke the state court for disregarding the prior precedent."

And as for res judicata, you obviously have no idea what that is.

[ExpandNATO]

Yeah, there's those little things called stare decisis and res judicata that they teach in all law schools, except in Alabama it seems.

And in Missourri and whatever law schools turned out the US Supreme Court. From the article:

After all, Roper itself was established as new U.S. Supreme Court "precedent" only because the Missouri Supreme Court refused to follow prior precedent. The U.S. Supreme Court used the appeal resulting from the Missouri decision to overturn its previous precedent and declined to rebuke the state court for disregarding the prior precedent.

So apparently some precedents are less subject to stare decisis, particularly if it provides the opportunity to drag the United States in a more liberal and/or libertine direction.

What this Alabama judge is stating is that that the composition of the US Supreme Court has changed, therefore it is time to test if a precedent can be overturned and a bloody murderer executed.