Friday, August 24, 2007

Stare Decisis 8 Recent Cases

The recent claims that newly-confirmed Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito were ignoring precedent, contrary to their confirmation hearings pledges, are partisan chum hurled into the waters where swim the most radical members of the Democratic base.

I have earlier examined the general scope of the doctrine of stare decisis which requires Supreme Court Justices to give great weight under appropriate circumstance to prior rulings of the Court and to the statements both Justices gave on the issue during their confirmation hearings for American Thinker readers.

Now, I will look at the eight cases which Justice Breyer apparently referred to when he suggested to Senator Specter that these new justices were not paying adequate attention to the doctrine. I find no basis for such a charge in any of these opinions. Westlaw (type in the name and citation here) to which I have cited, has a headnote system which permits you to see summaries of each case and is not so complicated. An average reader can certainly comprehend these decisions without legal training).

Each of these cases was decided by a divided court, so there are majority opinions, dissenting opinions, and often concurring opinions in which one or more judges agreed with the outcome but not some or all of the reasoning in the majority opinion.

My discussion of each is brief-just enough to show you why I think Justices Roberts and Alito's views in each were perfectly consistent with the recognized parameters of the doctrine of stare decisis I've already described and with their statements during their confirmation hearings.

Here are the cases:

* Bell Atlantic Corporation et al.,v. Twombley et al. 127 S. Ct.1955;
* Bowles, v. Russell, 127 S. Ct. 2360;
* Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right To Life, Inc.127 S.Ct.2652;
* Gonzales v. Carhart et al. 127 S. Ct 1610;
* Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, 127 S. Ct. 2553;
* Leegin Creative v. PSKS ,127 S.Ct. 2705;
* Morse v. Frederick,127 S.Ct. 2618;
* Parents Involved v. Seattle Schools, 127 S.Ct. 2738.
.............
source