Nov
07
A point to remember
Uncategorized Add comments
I’m just now seeing this.
Well, appellate judges are not obligated to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court. They take an oath only to uphold the Constitution. There’s no oath, no rule, no nothing [that mandates they must follow precedent].
It’s from the pre-confirmation hype about Judge Roberts, but it makes a point that too many folks forget. Justices only take an oath to the Constitution. There is no mandate they follow precedence.
The rest of the transcript is just funny. I wish there had been audio.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:14 pm
good article
November 9th, 2005 at 9:58 pm
That’s true, but misleading. While federal appellate justices do swear to uphold the Constitution, not precedent, they are working within the bounds of our legal system, which is based on the British common law and functions through a basic fairness mechanism known as stare decisis. Stare decisis dictates that precent be followed so that similar cases are decided in similar ways, so as to prevent unjust and uneven application of the law. This doesn’t prevent the Supreme Court from overruling its past decisions (which it certainly has), but it would make a tabula rasa reading of the Constitution in every case impossible, since every opinion would dictate a complete overhaul of all previous Constitutional precedent which could even possibly be related to the issue.
In other words, interpreting the Constitution in a vacuum is possible. All Supreme Court justices use case law in rendering their opinions. I’d respectfully suggest that you learn to deal with it.
November 10th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Again for clarity: the point was, there is no requirement to follow precedence. In fact, I would argue they have a responsibility to question precedent. The assumption that court opinions are infallible is a dangerous one - no matter what your political viewpoints. The founders knew that. It’s in great part why we have separation of powers.