The Supreme Court, Which Does Overrule Its Precedent From

In the Tinker vs. Des Moines court case the judges decided for Tinker even though both arguments from the lawyers where not well made. The judge’s decision was made by who they thought they should go for even though both sides had bad arguments and made a bigger deal of this case than what it should really be.

The Supreme Court is perhaps most well known for the Brown vs. Board of Education decision in 1954. By declaring that segregation in schools was unconstitutional, Kevern Verney says a ‘direct reversal of the Plessy … ruling’1 58 years earlier was affected. It was Plessy which gave southern

Stare Desis is Latin for “Standing by decided matter.” According to the Legal Dictionary, the doctrine of stare decisis also known as the precedent law, began in 12th century England, when King Henry II established the common law. According to stare decisis the decisions of a higher court, such as an appellate court, or Supreme Court become obligatory stare decisis, on lower courts which means that whatever the higher courts say is usually what the lower courts have to follow. It is a rare thing for the Supreme Court to overturn one of its own decisions that has been held as binding precedent. In 1896, the U.S. Supreme Court made a landmark decision in the case of Plessy v. Ferguson, when it looked at the case that allowed racial segregation in public facilities. This decision held stare decisis for nearly 60 years, until the case of Brown v. Board of Education was heard in 1953. Brown v. Board of Education was a case that took place 1951. In the case thirteen parents filed a civil law suit in U.S. District Court in Topeka, Kansas, regarding their 20 children. The plaintiffs, which is the parents of the children, demanded that the school district take away its policy of racial segregation that was set by the landmark case Plessy v. Ferguson which stated that the children would have separate facilities but would still be equal (which they never really were). After a long and unsuccessful road with the lower courts, the case was taken to the U.S.

a. Stare decisis is the legal principle of determining points in law according to precendets set by previous legal cases with similar conditions .

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

In addition, Case Law Reasoning was used to determine the outcome. Case Law Reasoning is when courts take prior cases, also known as precedents, and apply these cases to guide in the decision making processes. This application of taking prior cases to assist in the conclusion of current cases is known as stare decisis. Because case facts often vary, several cases are usually brought up to expand and make it possible to have a factual determination. In addition, several cases are brought up because moral ideas and the acceptance of such will change over time. Having

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.

Stare decisis “to let the decision stand” operates in a pyramid-type fashion and is the doctrine that judicial decisions stand as precedent for cases arising in the future. It is a fundamental policy of our law that, except in unusual circumstances, a court’s determination on a point of law will be followed by courts of the same or lower rank in later cases presenting the same legal issue, even though different parties are involved and any years have elapsed.

In support of this position, the government cited two decided decisions by the Court holding that the failure to object to a jury instruction is not controlling “for purposes of appellate review of the denial of a directed verdict or judgment notwithstanding the verdict.” Rather, the question of whether a party is entitled to a directed verdict “depends upon the sufficiency of the evidence up to that point in the trial,” not of the content of jury instructions, which are “outside the scope of that analysis.”

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.

They allude to the unanimous 9-0 decisions the Supreme Court has made as a strong indication that the court remains neutral. Chief Justice Roberts also recently stated at a Boston law school: “We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans” (Savage, 2016, p. 1). Moreover, Justice Scalia, when defending his conservative vote in a 5-4 ruling, claimed: “’I prefer not to take part in the assembling of an apparent but specious unanimity’” (Kuhn, 2014, p. 3). However, decisions become unanimous only when the ideological stakes are not large enough. As for extremely controversial topics, nearly every single recent 5-4 decision has been divided perfectly along ideological lines. The conservative majority, praised by Republicans, has unbelievably struck down major parts of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, upheld an individual’s right to own guns, and has allowed unlimited corporate spending in campaigns (Kuhn, 2014). These types of decisions have caused the divided Supreme Court that we have today. Looking at a more psychological and scientific perspective on this overall issue, an investigation by Anna Harvey and Michael J. Woodruff of the New York University found that the direction of decision and vote of the Supreme Court is frequently contaminated by confirmation bias; justices seeking out facts and reasoning that

The Supreme Court’s ruling did not take into account the majority opinion in Plessy versus Ferguson. Had it done so, the outcome would have been quite different. In the case of Plessy versus Ferguson, it was clear that there was some bias. Not only did it restore white supremacy but it violated the Fourteenth Amendment as well. This is because black facilities were undoubtedly unequal to those of the whites for that the white facilities were made with more quality, to say the least. Many whites were elated when the separate but equal facilities’ ruling was put into effect. For them, it was another moment to prove that the blacks were inferior. Though Kansas is not a southern state, members of the Supreme Court knew that many racists were going to be upset had the plaintiffs won. However, they did not let that hinder the outcome of the case. Because they knew what was right is right and what is wrong is wrong, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The opinion was that, “Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment…” They go on to say, “Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race… deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities? We believe that it does.” They go on to explain that to separate others solely because of race places a sense of

Stare Decisis plays a large role in Judicial Restraint. Stare Decisis is sticking to an established ruling that was handed down by past judges or jurors. A form of judicial restraint is called the political question doctrine, and it is significant in understanding this interpretation of the law. The political question doctrine is when a court acknowledges that the constitution is violated but does not decide to act. There are plenty of examples of Judicial Restraint throughout our history but the one that stands out the most in my mind is Gore Vs. Bush. In this case the Florida supreme courts methods of recounting the presidential ballots was considered and ruled as having violated the Equal Protection Laws which is under the fourteenth amendment in a presidential election. Everyone seems to know that something wrong was done, but no one really understands what happened. Before this debate I didn’t realize that this was an example of Judicial Restraint. And this is why I caint agree with either interpretations of the law.

Thomas also has a unique stance on stare decisis. Justice Antolin Scalia remarked: "brother clearance doesn't much believe in stare decisis, he is willing to go back and get it right even if we've gotten it wrong for a long long time."() Thomas's aversion towards starie decks is reflected in his voting record. During the Rehnquist years, Thomas encouraged the overruling of stare decis and voted against precedent more than any other Justice during that period. Thomas often dismisses the rulings in other previous when they conflict with his own interpretation. Thomas himself has eluded to his lack of deference to past decisions stating: " if it's wrong, it's wrong and we are obligated to revisit it"(Toobin