The dissent criticizes today’s decision as a departure from modern habeas precedent. Post, at 2; post, at 3, n. 2; post, at 12–13. But the dissent’s history is selective. The dissent champions decisions from the 1950s, ’60s, and ’70s. But it disregards how those decisions departed from a century of this Court’s precedents and the common law before that. Supra, at 5–8. At the same time, the dissent’s account overlooks this Court’s precedents refusing to afford retroactive application in every case since the 1980s. Post, at 10–11; post, at 12, n. 7. The dissent may prefer decisions within a particular 30-year window. But it is too much to say this preference is required to “[r]espect[] stare decisis.” Post, at 1, n. 1.
Justice Gorsuch, concurring opinion, Edwards v. Vannoy
Stare decisis-“To stand by that which is decided”-when we feel like it.
Stare decisis tends to be invoked by judges who like a prior decision and ignored by judges who believe the prior decision was a piece of judicial idiocy. Of course when a court is dealing with constitutional issues stare decisis plays less of a role because the Constitution, and the correct interpretation of it, is infinitely more important than prior decisions of any court. As Roe amply demonstrates however, too often the tool of constitutional interpretation used by the Supreme Court and many other courts might rightly be called “making it up as they go along”.
Since law school I have been extremely cynical about stare decisis. Although I recognized the utilitarian worth of the doctrine, courts should not constantly be revisiting matters already decided and that lower courts had to follow the rulings of higher courts, it was clear from the case law I read that stare decisis presented no obstacle when courts wanted to embark on a new course in a previously decided area of the law. Law Professor Josh Blackman notes this aspect of courts in regard to the current Supreme Court:
Justice Kagan and her colleagues are keen to extol the precedents established by the Warren Court. But left unsaid is how those decisions had zero respect for precedent.
Randy and I have added a chapter on Criminal Procedure for the 4th Edition of our casebook. In the process, I re-read many of the leading Warren Court CrimPro decisions. And I approached these cases from the perspective of constitutional law, rather than the nuances of law enforcement. I was struck, over and over again, at how willy-nilly the Warren Court nullified precedents. There were no discussions of reliance interests. In some cases, cases were overruled in footnotes, almost as an afterthought.
Go here to read the rest. In practice stare decisis, on the appellate level, means stare decisis for thee but not me. I will overrule precedents when it suits me, and when you attempt to do the same I will scream stare decisis. Any judge taken in by such double dealing is too stupid to be a judge.
Justice.
For whom?
Time and the pendulum. To the left, to the right and so on. At the throne of God sixty million victims are watching, praying and wondering as well. Justice. For whom?
The ultimate Supreme Court is perfect and I hope and pray these earth bound Justices keep in mind who has the final Word.
For the sake of HIS children, Lord have mercy.
To the Dems/left, The Constitution is any fell thing their fevered-psyches vomited before breakfast this morning. Then, they find precedent in MAD Magazine, or something.
After decades of no logic/reason and no accountability, this is what you get.
Do the right thing, Supreme Court.
Strange, isn’t it, how a Church hierarchy that has for decades, if not centuries, overtly substituted the “wisdom” of the world for the Word of God, so closely mimics the actions of another overtly political body that is supposed to be “above all that?”
Praying that the Mississippi law is upheld.
O Holy Spirit, enlighten the Justices.
VP Pence is correct; our culture in the US has deteriorated because of Roe vs Wade. Result the poison of abortion has spread throughout the world.
CAM:
“Result the poison of abortion has spread throughout the world.”
Quite true. But last night on EWTN I heard the current head of the National Catholic Bioethics Center say that many countries still prohibit abortion, something you never hear from the baby-killers and their mouthpieces. Interesting.
Stare decisis in this case=penumbra validated.
A whole lotta penumbra in the largely unserious jurisprudence coming from the Supreme Court for a long, long time. Mental gymnastics or plain stupidity? Arbiters of social norms, as they misread or ignore the constitution.
When Roe V Wade became created law, as many as 79% (including atheists) were said to be against abortion and
now, sadly, we have the scandal of only 55 % of Catholics against it. Satan has done his evil all too well in the USA, while the Church has failed to counteract his evil.
Justice Sotomajor was horrific….the tone of her ‘testimony’ in lieu of questions was vilely poisonous. Why do not our timorous bishops simply declare that any Justice who votes to uphold abortion is de facto excommunicated and anathema?
As you know, rarely does the SC directly overrule cases: rather, the questioned prior case gets distinguished, whittled-away, eventually ignored. But it usually takes quite a while for it to disappear entirely: remember Plessy. I suspect that’s going to happen here.
But it usually takes quite a while for it to disappear entirely: remember Plessy. I suspect that’s going to happen here.
Plessy was over-ruled outright 58 years after it was issued. We’ve had 48 years of this travesty; the abortion license has always been neuralgic to its opponents. In re segregation-in-general, I believe the first federal measures against it were enacted in 1941. Most states did not have parallel school systems. Among those which did, one of the earliest to dismantle their system was Indiana; this was accomplished in 1949.