“If stare decisis means anything, it must mean that a precedent should not be overturned simply because a differently composed court emerges,” the senators wrote. “Decision-making begins to look like prize-taking when precedents are reversed as Court majorities shift.” …
Now you tell us
Senate Democrats are shocked, shocked to learn that politicizing the Supreme Court may not have been an ideal strategy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
“Decision-making begins to look like prize-taking when precedents are reversed as Court majorities shift.” …
Perhaps one lesson is that there should be less power invested in the courts. If courts are to act as partisan legislators, perhaps they should be ignored or bypassed. An example comes to mind of judges stopping a number of Trump's executive orders.
Yeah, and then ask them their opinion on the importance of stare decisis when it comes to Heller. They'll give you a WHOLE nother raft of opinions about how THAT decision was "flawed".
If stare decisis means anything, it means heads we win, tails you lose. Because we're all about the stability until we're about the critical need for transformation.
Demoncrats and Leftists are just puppets of the Deep State.
Post a Comment