426
edits
Changes
no edit summary
Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] explained the [[conservative]] view of stare decisis in a concurring and dissenting opinion joined by Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] in 2007:<ref>FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2674 (2007)</ref>
Justice [[Antonin Scalia]] explained the [[conservative]] view of stare decisis in a concurring and dissenting opinion joined by Justices [[Anthony Kennedy]] and [[Clarence Thomas]] in 2007:<ref>FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2652, 2674 (2007)</ref>
:"Stare decisis is not an inexorable command" or "'a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.'" Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1991) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119, 60 S. Ct. 444, 84 L. Ed. 604, 1940-1 C.B. 223 (1940)). It is instead "'a principle of policy,'" Payne, supra, at 828, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720, and this Court has a "considered practice" not to apply that principle of policy "as rigidly in constitutional as in nonconstitutional cases." Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 543, 82 S. Ct. 1459, 8 L. Ed. 2d 671 (1962). This Court has not hesitated to overrule decisions offensive to the First Amendment (a "fixed star in our constitutional constellation," if there is one, West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943)) -- and to do so promptly where fundamental error was apparent. Just three years after our erroneous decision in Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 60 S. Ct. 1010, 84 L. Ed. 1375 (1940), the Court corrected the error in Barnette. Overruling a constitutional case decided just a few years earlier is far from unprecedented.
:"Stare decisis is not an inexorable command" or "'a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision.'" <ref>Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 828, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1991) (quoting Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119, 60 S. Ct. 444, 84 L. Ed. 604, 1940-1 C.B. 223 (1940)).</ref> It is instead "'a principle of policy,'" <ref>Payne, supra, at 828, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720,</ref> and this Court has a "considered practice" not to apply that principle of policy "as rigidly in constitutional as in nonconstitutional cases." <ref>Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 543, 82 S. Ct. 1459, 8 L. Ed. 2d 671 (1962).</ref> This Court has not hesitated to overrule decisions offensive to the First Amendment (a "fixed star in our constitutional constellation," if there is one,<ref> West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S. Ct. 1178, 87 L. Ed. 1628 (1943))</ref> -- and to do so promptly where fundamental error was apparent. Just three years after our erroneous decision in Minersville School Dist. v. Gobitis, <ref>310 U.S. 586, 60 S. Ct. 1010, 84 L. Ed. 1375 (1940)</ref>, the Court corrected the error in Barnette. Overruling a constitutional case decided just a few years earlier is far from unprecedented.
Justice Scalia then set forth in a footnote to the above paragraph a remarkable list of examples where the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has discarded stare decisis in favor of correcting a mistake:
Justice Scalia then set forth in a footnote to the above paragraph a remarkable list of examples where the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has discarded stare decisis in favor of correcting a mistake: