The debate is whether the United States Supreme Court is truly bound to its previous court decisions in reference to horizontal precedent. According to the definition of binding precedent, a court must follow a decision that was previously made because it is law. Binding precedent includes judicial decisions that are heard in that court’s jurisdiction level or higher. Since the Supreme Court is the only court that can overrule a previous decision is it really bound to its decisions in regards to horizontal stare decisis? While there is evidence that indicates that the Supreme Court has viewed horizontal precedent as a non-mandatory judicial policy, the U.S. Supreme court is bound to its previous case decisions because it has recognized the …show more content…
consistency that stare decisis brings and the Supreme Court rarely overturns a previous case. The three main arguments that are for the debate include: stare decisis provides four virtues of consistency, supreme court cases are rarely overturned, and judicial opinion in cases do not reflect or indicate that they overturn their previous decision. The Supreme Court has acknowledged four virtues of consistency, which are predictability, equality, appearance of justice, and effectiveness. Without predictability, contracts and wills drafted under an old legal regime may have different meanings, or no meaning at all.1 Firmly established law enables the community to distinguish and understand what their civic rights and duties are.
Predictability aids not just the public, but lower courts as well. Stare decisis limits judges’ ability to decide on things in relation to established rules of law rather than allowing judges to decide on an impulse. Inconsistent application of law is biased because it infringes upon the fundamental principle that similar litigants should be treated likewise in our legal system. 2 Stare decisis permits society to presume that fundamental principles are founded in the law rather than an individual’s predilection on it. This contributes to the integrity of our constitutional system of government. The validity of the judiciary is further enhanced when judges are observed to be applying law rather than just resolving a set of facts without any constraint. Stare decisis is a policy that also directly aids the judicial court system because dependence on authority conserves limited judicial resources. As Justice Cardozo wrote, “The labor of judges would be increased almost to the breaking point if every past decision could be reopened in every case, and one could not lay one’s own course of bricks on the secure foundation of the courses laid by others who had gone before him.”3 An opposing argument to this would be
that the four virtues do not depend on precedent being accurate, however that it is defined. It weakens the precedential weight of its own decisions if the Supreme Court declines to accord precedential weight to earlier decisions. My rebuttal is that by following precedence and the policy of stare decisis, a case is better off settled than to have what is necessarily considered as the right outcome. Justice Cardozo believes that it is best to follow precedent rather than the alternative of constantly reopen cases because only so much can be done. It is more important for a case to be settled than for it to be settled correctly even if that means there is a chance that it could be settled incorrectly. It is essential in how the law operates that decisions must be followed from precedent without considering if it is right or not. (43) The U.S. Supreme Court rarely overturns one of its previous rulings, but when it does, the ruling usually indicates a new way of approaching or looking at an imperative legal issue. The Supreme Court finds it difficult to revisit precedent considering they review less than a hundred cases in a year.
Stark began as a way to combat the abuse of doctors referring patients to clinics for tests in which they had a financial interest. Today it primarily deals with the hospital level and has seen compliance gained through the use of qui-tam lawsuits brought by non-governmental relators. Subpart A of this section will lay out the creation of Stark, the initial statute that created it and the many implementation phases and alterations it has gone through in its twenty-five plus year history. Subpart B will lay out some basic definitions that are necessary to understand the various elements of Stark violation. And Section C will give an introduction to the brief history of the SRDP.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that although the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role, standing precedent can be abandoned to allow for evolving societal standards of behavior or expectations.
United States Supreme Court cases are argued and decided on Constitutional grounds. All arguments and decisions are based on interpretations of the original Constitution and, more often, on Constitutional amendments.
Judicial activism and judicial restraint are two opposing philosophies when it comes to the Supreme Court justices' interpretations of the United States Constitution; justices appointed by the President to the Supreme Court serve for life,and thus whose decisions shape the lives of "We the people" for a long time to come.
Judicial Restraint- judges should decide cases on the basis of the original intent of those who wrote the Constitution
A solution, based in precedent, must be found to illustrate that judges are not consumed by their own opinions and agendas. Setting new precedent in the courtroom is essential to
The last model of the judicial decision making is the legal model. The legal model assumes that judges give in to the law when making decisions. If a judge has any personal preferences for an outcome in a case, it is assumed that he or she leaves these preferences aside and defers to the facts of the case or legal standard when making his or her decision.
Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
An important point to keep in mind is that all binding decisions are initiated at the highest court at either the federal or state level. These decisions are precedent only in the jurisdiction where the court presides. Stare decisis refers to the practice of the courts adhering to previously rendered decisions. This is especially true involving United States Supreme Court decisions that have binding authority on both the federal and the state courts. Remember that court decisions in the same jurisdiction only have persuasive authority which is not binding.
“The Clemency of the Court” written by Willa Cather for the Hesperian magazine, and “Clothes” from Arranged Marriage written by Chitra Banerjee Divakaruni, both discuss immigration to the United States. Although both authors write about the same subject, the author's’ point of view on the subject differ from one another. In “The Clemency of the Court” Cather is showing that the United States is failing in protecting its immigrants, while in “Clothes” it is showing the impact that the “American Dream” has on immigrants, and how it has the power to changes lives. In both stories, the main character struggle with the idea of the “American Dream”
There are certain categories of legal tradition that differentiate by country or time. These legal traditions are shared by a certain groups of individuals or whole systems in and of themselves. In other words, you have to understand the legal tradition, and which legal system it is affiliated with, to understand the whole picture of how disputes and conflicts are handled. I think in our modern times, it would be challenging to find one legal system that is without influence from other legal systems (Different Legal Traditions, 2012). Legal traditions tend to incorporate different elements from other cultures and legal systems. Most legal traditions have derived from a common origins, similar institutions, and shared concepts from regarding
Something more common is stare decisis, which is a type of methodology, and common law that they use along with interpreting the constitution. It is used so judges have some type of consistency and are bound to their past decisions. Stare decisis there are four primary reasons to follow it, it treats cases the the same, makes the law more predictable, strengthens judicial decision making and furthers stability (Oldfather, 2014). This is important in regards to constitutional interpretation because it is basically saying that judge is also bound to past constitutional interpretation. Some of the precedents produced by stare decisis are bad, but that’s because the system is not perfect. The implementation of precedence is also complicated because you have to find cases that are sufficiently alike and most cases are not identical (Oldfather, 2014). Another significant factor in stare decisis, is that the courts usually feel more comfortable in overruling constitutional precedents than amending the constitution, which is much more difficult. Stare decisis is commonly used in adjudication, probably the most prominent articulation of it was in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where they analyzed if they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, in terms of its workability (Oldfather,
The grounds of judicial review help judges uphold constitutional principles by, ensuring discretionary power of public bodies correspond with inter alia the rule of law. I will discuss the grounds of illegality, irrationality and proportionality in relation to examining what case law reveals about the purpose and effect these grounds.
A contract is an agreement between two parties in which one party agrees to perform some actions in return of some consideration. These promises are legally binding. The contract can be for exchange of goods, services, property and so on. A contract can be oral as well as written and also it can be part oral and part written but it is useful to have written contract otherwise issues can be created in future. But both the written as well as oral contract is legally enforceable. Also if there is a breach of contract, there are certain remedies for that which are discussed later in the assignment. There are certain elements which need to be present in a contract. These elements are discussed in the detail in the assignment. (Clarke,
Legal realism defines legal rights and duties as whatever the court says they are. Out of all the legal theories we have examined in class, I personally believe that this is the one that best exemplifies the purpose of law and would best suit and benefit society. The Dimensions of Law textbook defines legal realism as “the school of legal philosophy that examines law in a realistic rather than theoretical fashion; the belief that law is determined by what actually happens in court as judges interpret and apply law.”