Positional Predisposition

It is often believed that the relationship between certainty and flexibility in judicial precedent has struck a fine line between being necessary and being precarious. The problem is that these two concepts of judicial precedent are seen as working against each other and not in tandem. There is proof, however, that as contrasting as they are on the surface they are actually working together to achieve one common goal.

The Daily Record Staff. "Legal Opinions - U.S. Supreme Court: October 14, 2008." Daily Record, The; Baltimore, Md.. 14 Oct. 2008 eLibrary. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.

In the Kelo case, Legal Reasoning was prevalent in application of law to the outcome of the decision. Justice Stevens followed the guidelines that it was the courts duty to determine the wisdom of the government’s attempt to exercise eminent domain, and that the court should not allow its decision to be deviated by the hardship that one might incur when unwillingly relinquishing their home or property. The large media influence on the Kelo strengthened the importance of Legal Reasoning even more. The court found it necessary to remove all emotions involved in listening about an individual that was about to lose the home that they had lived in their entire life and make a decision that would be for the better good of the people.

27). By following this doctrine of precedent, stare decisis, judges are bound to follow the ratio decidendi, the reasons given, for the rulings in previous cases from higher up in their jurisdictional hierarchy. Rulings from other jurisdictions can also be used as persuasive force and argument, as can the obiter dicta, the judges’ comments other than those given as the reason for the ruling. In this way Judge made law resolves conflict and injustice by ruling consistently with rulings made in previous, characteristically similar cases. An inconsistent approach to similar situations cannot equate to being fair, just or equitable. In this way the ALS is not biased or prejudice, is applied equally to all, and ensures that the law is based on fairness and justice.

Thus, the court determined that La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 40:961, 40:962 could have no application in the prosecution of a person for the mere status or condition that might possibly arise unintentionally or involuntary. The court dismissed defendant's appeal of the judgment that revoked the suspension of two concurrent 10-year sentences for violating the conditions of his probation.

Citation: Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366; 124 S. Ct. 795; 157 L. Ed. 2d 769; 2003 U.S. LEXIS 9198

A landmark case in United States Law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States,

In Lawrence v. Texas, the supreme court justices distinguished Bowers v. Hardwick as legal precedent. Although it sets legal precedents, the court stated, “For this inquiry we deem it necessary to reconsider the Court's holding in

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

Criminal law is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The principle is to the extent that a man is not guilty of his acts, actus in the absence of a guilty conscience, mens rea (Gardner, 2009). To this end, criminal law justice provides that the person alleging the commission of a crime must proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused person(s) possessed mens rea, if the court is to hold a criminal liability against the accused. In the case of People of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson (1995) or what has come to be famously known as the O.J. Simpson Trial is a classical illustration of how highly the U.S. criminal justice regards the beyond reasonable doubt principle.

2. In Meyers v. Commonwealth, Meyers argued that the court misused its discretion by allowing his wife to testify. He said that his act of pointing a gun at his wife was a privileged conversation. The court did misuse its discretion based on the law, but the court’s decision to allow his wife to testify was a harmless error.

Legal cases are generally decided upon when a judge applies the law to the facts of the case; however, the Constitution is ambiguous which means it can be comprehended differently. The way the Constitution is translated in today 's society and applied to modern laws is a responsibility that the Supreme Court justices must uptake. Many factors are believed to play a role in how exactly justices finalize and make their decision, which is why political sciences created three different models of judicial decision making. The legal model, attitudinal model, and strategic model help us grasp a better understanding of what may influence the decision making process. As stated earlier, some decisions are based on the law being applied to the facts, and this decision process is explained in the legal model. The legal model also expresses how justices, in addition to using facts and the law, can use information from previous and almost equivalent cases helping them determine their decisions. Unlike the legal model, the attitudinal model explains how justice’s policy preferences can influence their decision. This model shows how legal text of the Constitution could possibly be ignored, and instead the justices’ own opinions, just like politicians, would guide them through the decision making process. According to Unit 8 Video Engager, it is believed that the justices may take this approach due to the fact that they are entitled to a

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

At the time the Court agreed with the clear and present danger test but will become more inconsistent in another case within the same year in Abrams v. United States (1919). Only eight months after the Debs and Frohwerk decisions the majority of the Justices would be unsupportive of the clear and present danger test adding to the inconsistency of the implementation of this test. In Abrams v. United States (1919) Justice Clarke’s majority opinion skews away from clear and present danger and embraces the defendant’s intentions and the tendency of expression to cause illegal action, or the bad tendency

The Supreme Court, which does overrule its precedent from time to time, does not need to do a lengthy analysis of each precedent’s viability in every case. Rather, through its certiorari jurisdiction (certiorari – an order by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court), it selects cases and issues that allow it to reconsider precedent on its own time. When the Court decides that a previous decision may be in jeopardy, it often asks the parties to brief whether precedent should be overruled.4 The Court must still confront petitions questioning precedent, but it can dispose of these quickly and without explanation if it so chooses through a simple denial of certiorari. This shows that horizontal stare decisis is upheld in the