The Supreme Court overruling on constitutional interpretation versus interpretation of a statue
The Supreme Court over the years has overruled 228 cases of their own ruling. The court practices “stare decisis” a Latin term meaning “to stand by things decided”. So, if a decision has been made by the Supreme Court why would they go back and change it? The Court recognizes that the practice of stare decisis is not absolute rule and as stated in the article, some decisions should be corrected considering that these rulings are used as models for future cases that present similar facts and problems. Courts base their ruling on Constitutional law, but they are more hesitant on overruling a decision based on constitutional interpretation versus a decision on interpretation of a statute, this can all be broken down as such- the court will consider to overturn a ruling if that decision is based on interpreting the constitution but are reluctant when it’s a decision based on the interpretation of a statue. Constitutional interpretation is the process of determining the meaning and application in the constitution. Statute’s are laws passed by legislatures. Do you believe that the courts hesitation towards overruling decisions that are interpretations of statues are in a sense their way of not wanting to admit a certain law
that passed held flaws, and do you think that overturning them would cause people to question
them?
