View Single Post
12-17-2004, 03:03 AM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Big Smoke
Posts: 3,903
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Lionel Hutz
Where did I ask if stare decisis meant that?

That's not what I wanted to know, and that's not what the question asked. The question was concerning the talk that the board may be more business friendly and suggestions that it will make different rulings than when it did when it was less republican. One of the principles of stare decisis is that rulings by given level of court /tribunal are to be taken at the very least as pursuasive authority by that level of court/tribunal. You need a reason to over-rule your own decision. So if they are bound, then how is it possible for a board to move off in a new direction simply b/c a bunch of republicans replaced the Democrats?
And I'm saying that stare decisis won't have much of an impact. These things tend to be pretty fact specific, which provides an opportunity for the biases of the adjudicators to come into play. It's not like laying out a principle of common law or something, it's applying a test that's generally pretty fact specific. You're not overruling the law, you're applying it to a given set of facts.

Not to mention that this is America, where political biases are much more accepted in judicial type proceedings. Look how many times the USSC has ruled on Roe v. Wade. Stare decisis doesn't seem to be much of a concern, the specific ruling seems to change with the makeup of the bench.

mudcrutch79 is offline