Stare decisis, sometimes

American Thinker ^ | June 29, 2010 | Aaron Gee

[bgill]

What any of that has to do with The Constitution of the United States Of America is anybody's guess

The other two branches don't follow the US Constitution, why should the judicial?

[Joe Brower]

[jazusamo]

A valid point and many in the judicial branch don’t.

[skimbell]

The liberal trash needs to remember that in the future, a court composed of more conservative judges might well ignore the make-believe constitutional concept that protects Roe v. Wade as they, the conservatives, take a shot kicking ‘stare decisis’ down the road.

[paul51]

the constitution is meaningless, or at best, secondary to the agenda.

[Jack Hammer]

Inside every Leftist politician, judge, journalist and ‘celebrity’ - in fact, every Leftist in public life - is a Little Dictator struggling to get out.

[Still Thinking]

Shouldn’t be any great surprise. Liberals are all about the rules, at least when they’re for “thee” and not “me”. In fact even on this particular issue, they’re contradicting themselves from when they contradicted their earlier contradictions. They’re so concerned about “stare decisis” when confirming a potentially conservative jurist, but the decisions they seek to enshrine are far newer and shorter lived than the practices and rulings THEY overturned, thus LESS deserving of deference than those liberals were happy to cast aside.

[longtermmemmory]

it is a stupid question for a supreme court nominee.

stare decisis does not apply to them because THEY are the highest court with no other court above them.

The supreme court always has the power to overule itself. Reporters are just too stupid to get it. (cnn’s toobin is just plain stupid and should have his JD revoked)

[chris_bdba]

I think that applies to all leftists! They can’t run their own lives but they sure think they can tell you how to run your’s!

[SunkenCiv]

Concepts like 'stare decisis' (the legal principle that obliges judges to respect precedents established by prior decisions) that were so important during the confirmation hearings of Justice Roberts, mean nothing to the sitting liberal justices.

Thanks jazusamo.

[MileHi]

Thank you. I wanted to express just that, but I am not as articulate.

[Jacquerie]

The other two branches don't follow the US Constitution, why should the judicial?

Quite right. Go back one step further. If the citizenry are not virtuous, but degenerate, immoral, ignorant of the constitutional duties of their government, and their unalienable rights, why should the other two branches follow the Constitution?

Ben Franklin was right. It is up to us to keep our republic.

[livius]

Nothing real means anything to liberals. It’s all what they say it is when they say it is. Alice in Wonderland time for all.

[reed13]

I’d prefer they go after the true meaning of the commerce clause and the contortions that it has allowed for the feds to usurp the majority of states powers - this will lead to resolving more than just the abortion usurpation.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Can we now charge Sotomayer with perjury for lying to Congress when she said that she believed that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right?

[jazusamo]

I hear you, she lied through her teeth.

[circlecity]

Short of impeachment there are no checks on the USSC. This makes it unique and arguably the most dangerous branch of government. Especially now that many justices just cloth political objectives with legal sophistry and pass it off as jurisprudence.

[coloradan]

Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor ignored stare decisis, the law, and the intentions of the authors of our Constitution to vote against restraints on Government power.

They also vote ignoring the possibility of starting a civil war.

[coloradan]

That’s a great question, and maybe deserves an answer from my elected reps ... unfortunately all ‘rats these days.