Stare Decisis Case Summary
QUESTIONS PRESENTED INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE Andy So is a student at Seattle Pacific University studying Political Science. He is taking a course in Constitutional Law focusing on liberties. He has a strong interest in the subject of protection of state interests, as well as protection of the common good. This interest has thus subjected him to delve into the topics found in this case.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In the interest of preserving the respect for the rule of law and cabin judicial discretion a principle of Stare decisis must be applied. This foundational principle in the U.S. legal system sets a base for favoring the adherence to precedent in order to establish a consistent and stable courtroom climate. …show more content…
Stare decisis is a foundational principle in the judicial process.
Stare decisis is the doctrine of precedent. This doctrine is cited by the courts when a previously determined issue is brought back up. In general, the court will adhere to past rulings.
a. The doctrine of stare decisis promotes a predictability of the court that establishes a clarity of the constitutional rights of the public. Stare decisis is important in that it “preserves respect for the rule of law and appropriately cabins judicial discretion” (Constitutional Law Professors, 5). According to the Supreme Court, this doctrine of precedent:
“promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401, 2409 (2015) Based on stare decisis the court will commonly defer to previous decisions even if the current court finds the decision to be questionable. The standard for an unwavering law was held by the Founders who recognized …show more content…
This view is explicitly stated by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor during her court opinion in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2164 (2013), stating, “under our doctrine of stare decisis, establishing that a decision was wrong does not, without more, justify overruling it.” The Court has been shown to uphold stare decisis even after expressing doubts about the correctness of the decision as in the case of in the case of Rhode 8 Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 304 (1980). Justice Burger in his concurring opinion concedes that after initial reservations, “[t]he meaning” of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), “ha[d] become reasonably clear and law enforcement practices ha[d] adjusted to its
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT In the interest of preserving the respect for the rule of law and cabin judicial discretion a principle of Stare decisis must be applied. This foundational principle in the U.S. legal system sets a base for favoring the adherence to precedent in order to establish a consistent and stable courtroom climate. …show more content…
Stare decisis is a foundational principle in the judicial process.
Stare decisis is the doctrine of precedent. This doctrine is cited by the courts when a previously determined issue is brought back up. In general, the court will adhere to past rulings.
a. The doctrine of stare decisis promotes a predictability of the court that establishes a clarity of the constitutional rights of the public. Stare decisis is important in that it “preserves respect for the rule of law and appropriately cabins judicial discretion” (Constitutional Law Professors, 5). According to the Supreme Court, this doctrine of precedent:
“promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises LLC, 135 S. Ct. 2401, 2409 (2015) Based on stare decisis the court will commonly defer to previous decisions even if the current court finds the decision to be questionable. The standard for an unwavering law was held by the Founders who recognized …show more content…
This view is explicitly stated by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor during her court opinion in Alleyne v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 2151, 2164 (2013), stating, “under our doctrine of stare decisis, establishing that a decision was wrong does not, without more, justify overruling it.” The Court has been shown to uphold stare decisis even after expressing doubts about the correctness of the decision as in the case of in the case of Rhode 8 Island v. Innis, 446 U.S. 291, 304 (1980). Justice Burger in his concurring opinion concedes that after initial reservations, “[t]he meaning” of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), “ha[d] become reasonably clear and law enforcement practices ha[d] adjusted to its