Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $21,517
Woo hoo!! And the first 24% is in!! Thank you all very much for your continuing support!!

Keyword: staredecisis

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Stare decisis, sometimes

    06/29/2010 1:33:16 PM PDT · by jazusamo · 22 replies · 2+ views
    American Thinker ^ | June 29, 2010 | Aaron Gee
    Can we stop pretending that liberal jurisprudence is anything but warmed over politics in a judicial robe?  Yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court in McDonald v. Chicago proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the left-leaning justices will vote what they believe regardless of what a law's intentions were.  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.  Each of the left leaning judges voted as if The District of Columbia vs Heller...
  • Proposition 8 Appeal (Martinez Vs. Kulongoski - Oregon 2006 - Its An Amendment)

    11/06/2008 9:36:41 PM PST · by goldstategop · 8 replies · 1,288+ views ^ | 5/21/2006 | Oregon Supreme Court
  • Death Penalty Is Thrown Out in Wendy’s Killings (Flushing NYC in 2000)

    10/23/2007 6:24:02 PM PDT · by neverdem · 20 replies · 100+ views
    NY Times ^ | October 23, 2007 | ALAN FEUER
    Closing a chapter on one of the bloodiest crimes in recent New York City history, the state’s highest court today tossed out the death sentence imposed on a man for his role in the murders of five workers at a Wendy’s restaurant in Queens seven years ago. The man, John B. Taylor, was the last remaining inmate on New York State’s death row. The divided decision by the Court of Appeals not only ordered the trial court to resentence Mr. Taylor — almost certainly to life in prison without parole — but it also reaffirmed a landmark decision in 2004...
  • Stare Decisis: Not Quite What Senator Schumer Would Have You Believe

    08/05/2007 11:53:01 PM PDT · by neverdem · 32 replies · 2,170+ views
    American Thinker ^ | August 06, 2007 | Clarice Feldman
    Led by Senator Charles Schumer, Senate Democrats are trying to bamboozle the American public into believing that Bush appointees to the Supreme Court are dangerous radicals. Senator Schumer's suggestion and Justice Beyer's unusual and inappropriate complaint to Senator Specter that the newest members of the Supreme Court -- Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito -- are ignoring and overruling established precedent is of a piece with the mandarinate's general and untrue response to the Administration: the Mongols have taken over. I have reviewed the law on stare decisis (the doctrine that judges should rule in accord with past precedent to...
  • The Diversity Thing (The Big Lie-Hate Crimes)

    02/25/2007 1:37:39 AM PST · by Nextrush · 18 replies · 1,351+ views
    2/25/07 | Self
    "Horst Wessel was murdered because he was a National Socialist." Joseph Goebbels-1930 "Matthew Shepherd was killed because he was gay" Common Belief-Today Both statements tell stories that don't reflect all the facts of the original cases. Adolf Hitler postulated in "Mein Kampf" that if you tell a big lie, it would be believed more than the small ones that everyone tells and accepts as being lies. Hitler also believed that even if the truth came out later, the lie would still stick. Horst Wessel was a Nazi Storm Trooper (Brownshirt) who left his wealthy family to live on the streets....
  • Roe v. Wade: A Not-So-Super Precedent

    04/20/2006 7:44:34 AM PDT · by Salvation · 21 replies · 668+ views ^ | 04-20-06 | Ken Concannon
    by Ken Concannon Other Articles by Ken Concannon Roe v. Wade: A Not-So-Super Precedent 04/20/06 On the second day of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in September 2005, pro-choice Republican committee chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania introduced the subject of stare decisis, a Latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided.” In This Article...A Grim AttachmentIf the Print Is Small Enough They Won’t NoticePlease Don’t Confuse Us With the Facts A Grim Attachment It’s a maxim that abortion supporters, like Specter, cling to dearly because most constitutional scholars are well aware that the Roe decision...
  • Bowing to Precedent

    04/08/2006 2:50:08 PM PDT · by RWR8189 · 6 replies · 608+ views
    The Weekly Standard ^ | April 17, 2006 | Robert F. Nagel
    A decent respect for the Constitution should cause the Supreme Court to reconsider some past decisionsAT THE OUTSET OF Samuel Alito's confirmation hearings, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter asked a series of questions about the rather arcane subject of stare decisis, which is the judicial practice of following prior decisions. Eventually the questions took an odd turn, with Specter asking Alito whether he agreed that the right to abortion had special immunity from reconsideration, that is, whether it is "super-precedent." Alito parried this by declining to "get into categorizing precedents as super-precedents or super-duper precedents." That sort of terminology, Alito...
  • Stare Non Determinus

    11/13/2005 1:02:38 PM PST · by Jeremydmccann · 23 replies · 664+ views
    The American View ^ | Scott T. Whiteman
    Okay, the title is made up, and it would “more properly” read non stare decicis, or “do not stand by the decision.” The point is, there are occasions when old precedent is not only non-binding, but to follow it would be stupid, illegal and unconstitutional, and just plain un-Godly. With all that banters about regarding the strict following of the decisions of the higher courts coming from both the left and the right, aren’t you suspicious that you are are not getting the whole story on Stare Decisis? Do you really believe that our Founders would have shackled themselves to...
  • Progressivism's Alamo (Why stare decisis has become so important to the liberal project)

    01/18/2006 6:38:19 PM PST · by RWR8189 · 25 replies · 1,292+ views
    The Weekly Standard ^ | January 18, 2006 | John Hinderaker
     THE HEARINGS on John Roberts's and Sam Alito's nominations to the Supreme Court featured a Latin phrase most people hear only in connection with Supreme Court confirmations: stare decisis. Stare decisis is the legal doctrine holding that in general, an issue once decided should stay decided, and not be revisited. This exchange between Judge Alito and Senator Arlen Specter, near the beginning of Alito's testimony, was one of many similar colloquies:  SPECTER: In Casey, the joint opinion said, quote, "People have ordered their thinking and lives around Roe. To eliminate the issue of reliance would be detrimental."  Now, that states,...
  • Precedent and the Constitution (an old but good read about stare decisis)

    01/15/2006 9:14:48 PM PST · by Sonny M · 9 replies · 1,399+ views
    Real Clear Politics ^ | November 17, 2005 | Ronald A. Cass
    Many issues that affect our lives and shape our nation turn on judges' decisions on constitutional questions. Can students say "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance? Can states take away private property for private uses? Can Congress restrict campaign contributions and expenditures? Answers to these and other constitutional questions depend critically on how one approaches the interpretive task. Any sensible approach to constitutional interpretation must look to the core sources of law - the text, structure, and history of the constitution. For many questions, these will provide enough guidance to answer the constitutional question presented. Yet in many other...
  • Stare Indecisis

    01/14/2006 6:17:15 AM PST · by yoe · 19 replies · 904+ views
    The Wall Street Journal ^ | January 14, 2006 | Editor
    Having failed to lay a glove on Samuel Alito this week on ethics, liberal opponents are now falling back on a hardy perennial to justify their votes against him: He lacks due regard for Supreme Court precedent, and in particular he might vote to overturn that holiest of liberal precedents, Roe v. Wade. As long as they're raising the subject, we agree this is a good moment to consider just what everyone means by stare decisis (Latin for "to stand by decided matters"). In the liberal caricature of the phrase, it means there are two kinds of conservative Justices. There...
  • The Stare Decisis Scam (Why the term is now being abused to accept wrong decisions)

    01/13/2006 8:29:34 AM PST · by SirLinksalot · 38 replies · 1,182+ views
    American Thinker ^ | 01/13/2006 | J. Peter Mulhern
    The Stare Decisis Scam January 13th, 2006 The once obscure law Latin phrase “stare decisis” used to be the exclusive property of pompous judges and still more pompous first year law students. Roughly translated it means “to stand pat.” Suddenly that phrase is sweeping the nation. Thanks to the perverted politics that Roe v. Wade begat, all sides of the burning debate over our constitutional future are looking for political advantage in the simple idea that courts should not lightly overrule their own precedents. To the left, stare decisis means the Supreme Court’s mandate that every state must tolerate unlimited...
  • The Past and Future of Roe v. Wade

    01/12/2006 2:54:09 AM PST · by RWR8189 · 18 replies · 498+ views
    Creator's Syndicate ^ | January 12, 2006 | Steve Chapman
    Samuel Alito Jr. wrote a memo in 1985 arguing there is no constitutional right to abortion, and pro-choice groups are alarmed by that document. They say it proves he's a right-wing extremist with a "long history of hostility to reproductive freedom," in the words of the National Abortion Federation.Maybe Alito is secretly plotting to make pregnancy mandatory for all fertile females, as the NAF sugests. But for those of us who are inclined to be charitable, there's another possible explanation for why he said the Constitution doesn't protection abortion rights: because it doesn't.It's true the Supreme Court has ruled it...
  • A 'sick sideshow,' stare decisis revisited

    01/11/2006 11:27:04 PM PST · by The_Eaglet · 1 replies · 256+ views
    Syrupy Pop ^ | January 12, 2005 | Edward J. Calvin Jr.
    Ann Coulter: For fun, we ought to replace all the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with "American Idol" contestants (assuming they wouldn't object to serving on a committee that includes a degenerate like Teddy Kennedy). Democrats would still not be able to persuade a single normal American that Sam Alito is "out of the mainstream." Indeed, it's gone very well for Judge Samuel Alito. Of course, the baseless attacks of certain senators have gone way too far, clearly exemplifying the sorry state of today's Democratic Party. And while pathetic, the Dems' shameful behavior is very hurtful to some...
  • Stare Decisis and the U.S. Constitution

    12/26/2005 6:13:07 AM PST · by JBroadwa · 5 replies · 308+ views
    12-26-2005 | JBroadwa
    "Stare decisis" in upholding U.S. Supreme Court decisions is something the liberals belive in only when it suits their purposes.
  • The Law of Lawlessness (If stare decisis trumps the Constitution, then we don't have one.)

    11/01/2005 9:49:29 PM PST · by nickcarraway · 40 replies · 1,183+ views
    The American Prowler ^ | 11/2/2005 | George Neumayr
    Samuel Alito, appearing with Arlen Specter shortly after his nomination to the court, amiably endured the Pennsylvania senator's lightweight babblings. Expect to be asked about "super-duper precedent," Specter, still enamored with his phrase from John Roberts' hearings, informed Alito. Like Roberts, Alito will no doubt humor this gibberish before the senators. Then hopefully he'll disregard it. Supreme Court Justices take an oath not to stare decisis but to the Constitution. If stare decisis becomes a more fundamental doctrine than the Constitution itself, then we've lost it for good. The senators' interest in stare decisis as the trumping principle of constitutional...
  • So, Do You Believe in 'Superprecedent'?

    10/30/2005 3:01:37 PM PST · by freedomdefender · 123 replies · 2,151+ views
    New York Times ^ | October 30, 2005 | Jeffrey Rosen
    [S]ocial conservatives face a problem: a new theory of "superprecedents" ... The term superprecedents first surfaced at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Judge John Roberts, when Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, asked him whether he agreed that certain cases like Roe had become superprecedents or "super-duper" precedents - that is, that they were so deeply embedded in the fabric of law they should be especially hard to overturn. In response, Judge Roberts embraced the traditional doctrine of "stare decisis" - or, "let the decision stand" - and seemed to agree that judges should...
  • Freeper Investigation: Original Intent and Constitutional Jurisprudence

    09/18/2005 9:30:23 PM PDT · by betty boop · 204 replies · 2,964+ views
    Freeper Research Project | September 19, 2005 | Jean F. Drew
    Freeper Investigation: Original Intent and Constitutional Jurisprudence by Jean F. Drew English and Anglo-American law’s core principle is the opposition to abusive power as exercised by the state. As Dan Gifford writes in “The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason,” “The law is not the law regardless if it be good, bad, or indifferent. There is a higher moral law, originating within ancient Jewish law, which requires individual responsibility for opposing evil and promoting goodness. It is from this basic tenet that English law and Anglo-American law embody the following principle: The individual has rights against the...
  • What ink is for...

    08/28/2005 10:08:24 AM PDT · by pickrell · 735+ views
    Civics Class | 28 August-2005 | Ron Pickrell
    In an AP story, writer Nancy Benac details the array of opinions over how to question, on the floor of the U.S. Senate, a nominee for the office of Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Variations revolve around the manner and appropriateness of detailed interrogation as to how the nominee feels about various issues , thus indicating how that nominee will likely rule. That such articles are now written indicates just what danger the Republic now faces, and from whence the threat comes. Before the "Reduce Them to Mental Fudge" Acts of 1972 thru 2005 , our school systems used...

    08/05/2005 5:32:40 AM PDT · by AliVeritas · 15 replies · 516+ views ^ | Aug 4, 2005 | Michael J. Gaynor
    Which is more important: the Constitution or stare decisis? The right answer is the Constitution, of course. Not stare decisis. The Constitution specifically calls for officeholders to take an oath to uphold the Constitution. NOT stare decisis. That’s a Latin phrase meaning to abide by, or adhere to, decided cases. It is a judicial policy based on the belief that security and certainty require that accepted and established legal principle, under which rights may accrue, be recognized and followed, even though later found to be not legally sound. The policy is to require lower courts to follow higher courts, which...