Changes

266 bytes added ,  19:22, June 29, 2020
Liberal hypocrisy is illustrated by the selective use of ''stare decisis'' to perpetuate wrong decisions liberals' support (such as pro-abortion rulings) while engaging in judicial activism to change decisions they dislike (such as marriage de
Line 1: Line 1:  
'''Stare decisis''' means adherence by courts in current legal cases to principles established by prior court decisions.  Literally, it is Latin for "to stand by that which was decided."  It is justified by preserving reasonable expectations of the legal system, and by maintaining consistency.
 
'''Stare decisis''' means adherence by courts in current legal cases to principles established by prior court decisions.  Literally, it is Latin for "to stand by that which was decided."  It is justified by preserving reasonable expectations of the legal system, and by maintaining consistency.
   −
In general, when a lawyer is attempting to have a case considered where Stare decisis seems appropriate, there are three options:
+
[[Liberal hypocrisy]] is illustrated by the selective use of ''stare decisis'' to perpetuate wrong decisions liberals' support (such as pro-[[abortion]] rulings) while engaging in [[judicial activism]] to change decisions they dislike (such as marriage decisions).
 +
 
 +
In general, when a lawyer is attempting to have a case considered where stare decisis seems appropriate, there are three options:
 
#Explain to the court why Stare decisis does not rule this particular set of facts, which is to say, "Why this case is different from [[Brown v. Board of Education]]".
 
#Explain to the court why Stare decisis does not rule this particular set of facts, which is to say, "Why this case is different from [[Brown v. Board of Education]]".
 
#Explain to the court why the prior stare decisis was wrongly held.  In arguing [[Lawrence v. Texas]], the plaintiff had to state where Browers had gone wrong, and ask the Court to reconsider Browers before moving on to Lawrence.   
 
#Explain to the court why the prior stare decisis was wrongly held.  In arguing [[Lawrence v. Texas]], the plaintiff had to state where Browers had gone wrong, and ask the Court to reconsider Browers before moving on to Lawrence.   
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,581

edits