Tuesday, September 13, 2005

stare decisis

I predict a ridiculous amount of emphasis on John Roberts' view of stare decisis, and I also predict his polite refusal to answer--clearly.

For those like myself who took Latin but can't remember either one of those words...in American jurisprudence it is referring to the propensity of the court to follow precedent.

In light of this confirmation it is inferentially trying to ascertain if Roberts would uphold a ruling on the grounds of precedent regardless of it's constitutionality...(like Roe v. Wade).

In cases like Plessy v. Ferguson the court broke with precedent and I think most would agree that it was the correct decision. (segregation was deemed no longer constitutional when the court struck down the Louisiana Supremes)

The real question is not about stare decisis, the real question is an abortion litmus test. Will the American electorate allow selfish Senators who are beholden to the abortion lobby get away with publicly trashing a nominee without punishment? I doubt it, remember Tom Daschle?
Probably not, but he was once the ranking Democrat--and leader of the judicial nomination "borking." He lost reelection.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

No naps at preschool
I am what one might call a 'Militant Nap Enforcer'. I believe there are three reasons I survived the first two-and-a-half years of my life as a mother of two: Zoloft, happy hour and naptime.
this is the best thing about marketing that I have ever seen!
go over to;

8:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home