Stare Decisis: What Is Stare Decisis? [No. 86]
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 01. 2019
- The Latin term “stare decisis” may be translated literally as “to stand by decided matters.” In the American legal system, stare decisis plays a significant role in promoting the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.
What is stare decisis? How does it impact the concept of precedent? Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute explores the origins and purpose of stare decisis.
As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speaker.
Learn more about Roger Pilon:
www.cato.org/people/roger-pilon
Follow Roger Pilon on Twitter: @Roger_Pilon
/ roger_pilon
Related Links & Differing Views:
The Federalist Society: “Liberty Month Revisited: The Separation of Powers, Stare Decisis, and the Constitution”
fedsoc.org/commentary/blog-po...
The Federalist Society: “Liberty Month Revisited: Stare Decisis and the Separation of Powers”
fedsoc.org/commentary/blog-po...
Constitution Society: “How stare decisis Subverts the Law”
www.constitution.org/col/0610s...
![What Is Corpus Linguistics? [No. 86]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/rFW2H5CqNA4/mqdefault.jpg)
![What Is Corpus Linguistics? [No. 86]](/img/tr.png)
bruhhhh i came here to study and this guy be putting me to sleep with that soothing voice..... but why ?????
A precise, clear and easily understandable explanation
Why not turn the music up even more so I can hear even less of what is being said...
who's here cramming for business law
Yup
Higher Ed law 😢
@@PrincessOverDoesIt good luck LOL my prayers go out to you
@@kathleennguyen6410 ty boo! 🙂
Paralegal studies here
thank you so much
Ty I need this for vocab test
When after years of stare decisis is observed and upheld multiple times by several seperate courts, only to have an activist minded, dark money funded group of justices who are appointed under somewhat questionable means the legitimacy of the court must be questioned and a remedy found to offset the capture.
❤
each case is separate and independent. precedents back people into corners and generalize their case to something that had nothing to do with them. its an easy way for judges to duck out of their job.
100% correct. You can't paint every case with the same brush.
So you never liked getting told “no” when you were a child. Got it.
It's important to consider the unique facts of the current case, but precedent is literally the foundation of common law, it's important to take it into consideration. I watched this video a week ago but I'm assuming they mentioned that part as well.
Indeed! 03:03
So the overturning of Roe violates this principle, then.
Yep...
What if the precedents of the past are wrong? Must Stare Decisis be the end all?
Exactly.
I have always been told that courts don't make law, but interpret it. "Precedents" of other court decisions should have no bearing on a court's rulings. Only laws passed by state or federal legislatures should be all that available to base their rulings on. I agree lower court should be bound to higher courts rulings, but anything else is a 2nd branch of legislators found in court houses.
Do precedents never change in the American system?
Did I really just hear a teacher of the law actually argue that business need to understand the law more than individuals do? Really? If a business violates the law it will be fined, if I violate the law I go to the clink.
Natural Law over Common Law, thanks.
Both stare decisis and common law refer to Judge Made Law. The Kings of England appointed Judges who created Law that have now become "doctrines" in our stare decisis. Example is Sovereign Immunity. It was used by King (Dictator) appointed Judges to circumvent the Common Law of England known as the Magna Carta. Judges in our land have used the same to circumvent the Common Law of our Land, our Supreme Law of the Land, known as our Constitution for our United States, and the Common Law for semi-autonomous jurisdictions governed by a Common Law known as a State Constitution. With it they have put government on our Land ABOVE THE LAW. Thus depriving us of the protection of the law. Because the King Appointed Judges destroyed the Common Law of England with the Judge Made Law for the King our Constitution did not give any law making power to the Judiciary. Over time the Judiciary has assumed that power to usurp the power of Congress and the Legislatures of our States. Properly was is taught in law schools as a "power to interpret" is a "duty to understand". Too many Attorneys and too many Judges do not understand that THE PEOPLE ARE THE SOVEREIGN and PEOPLE have immunity - NOT governments nor the public servants employed therein!
Do you remember commenting here
This law should be used as much as possible!
not a law
Stare Decisis is ridiculous. I've never understood it. What if a judge sets a precedent of bad law? To follow precedent, a judge must greatly trust in both the honesty and competence of the judge who set the precedent. I don't trust anyone. Especially men who wear dresses and expect that you call them "honorable". People who have actually honor don't need to force others to acknowledge it. If I were a judge I would NEVER rule on precedent. I would rule on law that is constitutional.
Dd
Since when did joe Biden do audio books
since the taking post of Trump 4 years ago😭
Roe & Casey will not be overturned…
The activist conservative SCOTUS judges apparently disagree with you. Seems like SCOTUS disregard for stare decisis should also apply to Citizen's United since corporations are not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Uh oh...