advertisement
Forums

 

AAPL stock: Click Here

You are currently viewing the 'Friendly' Political Ranting forum
Stare decisis
Posted by: Speedy
Date: June 23, 2019 09:25AM
What’s next, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education, maybe, for Trump, even Marbury v. Madison?

[www.washingtonpost.com]

“The Supreme Court’s liberal and conservative members clashed again Friday on respecting the court’s precedents, this time about when a property owner aggrieved by a local government’s restriction on her land can go to federal court.

The issue has been important to the conservative legal establishment and its belief that a 1985 ruling, which the court overturned Friday on a 5-to-4 vote, left property owners without options in federal court if claims in state proceedings are unsatisfactory.

But 42 pages of back-and-forth between conservative Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and liberal Justice Elena Kagan seemed more inspired by the liberals’ fear that the court’s increasingly conservative majority is on a campaign to remake the court’s precedents.

“Under cover of overruling ‘only’ a single decision, today’s opinion smashes a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens,” Kagan wrote.

She noted that just last month, when the court overturned another long-standing precedent, Justice Stephen G. Breyer said in his dissent, “Today’s decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next.”

Kagan quipped: “Well, that didn’t take long. Now one may wonder yet again.”

Roberts was sensitive enough to what he, in the opinion, called Kagan’s “extreme assertions” that the chief justice specifically addressed them while announcing the decision from the bench.

He said the court’s majority decided quickly that the 1985 decision, Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, was incorrectly decided. But the justices still had to wrestle with the doctrine of stare decisis, which calls for them generally to honor precedent.

Roberts noted that in two decisions announced this week, the court did just that.

“Today,” he said, “the balance tips in favor of dispensing with Williamson County.”

The case’s reasoning was not just wrong but “exceptionally ill founded,” Roberts wrote, and had been criticized for years “from Justices of this Court and many respected commentators.”

The decision was a victory for Rose Mary Knick, who owns 90 acres of rural property north of Scranton, Pa. There’s a dispute about whether a small graveyard sits on the property; the township of Scott has an ordinance that says all cemeteries must be open to the public during daylight hours.

Knick felt that would be a taking of her property and filed a federal lawsuit. She said it violated the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, which says that “private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

The federal court cited Williamson and said she could not bring the suit without going through state proceedings first. And under a subsequent Supreme Court ruling, a federal court generally must defer to a state court’s resolution of a claim for just compensation.

“The takings plaintiff thus finds himself in a Catch-22: He cannot go to federal court without going to state court first; but if he goes to state court and loses, his claim will be barred in federal court,” Roberts wrote. “The federal claim dies aborning.”

The case was first heard in early October and apparently split the court 4 to 4. It was reargued in January after Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh joined the court, and he joined the court’s other conservative justices — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — in the majority with Roberts.

“The court’s decision sends a message that constitutionally based property rights deserve federal protection just like other rights,” said J. David Breemer, a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which represented Knick.

Kagan said the proper authority to correct any Catch-22 problem is Congress, which has considered such matters but has not acted.

Kagan has become the court’s most ardent supporter of stare decisis, likely because she fears the court’s increasing conservative majority might do away with other precedents important to liberals. She was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Breyer.

Kagan also strenuously dissented last term when the court overturned a 40-year-old precedent regarding fees paid to public employee unions. That case was cited by Roberts in Friday’s opinion.

“If that is the way the majority means to proceed — relying on one subversion of stare decisis to support another — we may as well not have principles about precedents at all,” she wrote.”



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Stare decisis
Posted by: deckeda
Date: June 23, 2019 09:34AM
People are counting on Roberts being worried of his Court becoming meaningless, but the reality is that he’s more worried about his legacy being seen as meaningless.

Kagan’s correct: the Court never decides a case in a vacuum.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Stare decisis
Posted by: graylocks
Date: June 23, 2019 10:47AM
for those of you who did not take latin in high school and wonder about the pronunciation of stare decisis here you go: stare decisis

just in case you find yourself in a discussion around the water cooler. if Kagan is correct this is going to come up again.



"Success isn't about how much money you make. It is about the difference you make in people's lives."--Michelle Obama



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/23/2019 10:49AM by graylocks.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Stare decisis
Posted by: DeusxMac
Date: June 23, 2019 11:09AM
Quote
graylocks
for those of you who did not take latin in high school and wonder about the pronunciation of stare decisis here you go: stare decisis

just in case you find yourself in a discussion around the water cooler. if Kagan is correct this is going to come up again.

While there appear to be innumerable web sites pronouncing it like this link (including "lawyers")*, in Latin, the first word should be pronounced "stah-ray", not "stair-ee".

stare decisis
(stah-ray duh-see-sis) n. Latin for "to stand by a decision," the doctrine that a trial court is bound by appellate court decisions (precedents) on a legal question which is raised in the lower court. Reliance on such precedents is required of trial courts until such time as an appellate court changes the rule, for the trial court cannot ignore the precedent (even when the trial judge believes it is "bad law"). (See: precedent, appellate court, lower court)


[www.howtopronounce.com]

*Not to mention robo voices completely screwing it up; "stair"!
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Stare decisis
Posted by: graylocks
Date: June 23, 2019 12:29PM
Quote
DeusxMac

While there appear to be innumerable web sites pronouncing it like this link (including "lawyers")*, in Latin, the first word should be pronounced "stah-ray", not "stair-ee".

agreed. that's what i thought when i first saw the word. i only checked one site and thought maybe i was misremembering latin vowels. however, i mainly wanted to help someone not commit the faux pas of pronouncing it as a monosyllabic stare.



"Success isn't about how much money you make. It is about the difference you make in people's lives."--Michelle Obama
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Stare decisis
Posted by: bfd
Date: June 23, 2019 03:05PM
The entire US government has turned into one ongoing episode The Bickersons … any wonder who lit that fuse?
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Stare decisis
Posted by: Speedy
Date: June 23, 2019 04:33PM
Quote
bfd
The entire US government has turned into one ongoing episode The Bickersons … any wonder who lit that fuse?

Pres. Nixon with his Southern Strategy followed by Pres. Reagan with his massive transfer of wealth to the oligarchy.



Saint Cloud, Minnesota, where the weather is wonderful even when it isn't.
Options:  Reply • Quote
Re: Stare decisis
Posted by: max
Date: June 23, 2019 10:56PM
Two blind men describing an elephant....
Quote
graylocks
for those of you who did not take latin in high school and wonder about the pronunciation of stare decisis here you go: stare decisis

Quote
DeusxMac
While there appear to be innumerable web sites pronouncing it like this link (including "lawyers")*, in Latin, the first word should be pronounced "stah-ray", not "stair-ee".

stare decisis
(stah-ray duh-see-sis)

Sheesh, still incorrect, there is no "ray" in stare, try stah-re or stah-reh.
Neither is there any "duh" in decisis

Just because either one of you read it on the internet still leaves you clueless.

Or actually learn Latin....




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end.
One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution;
one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship."
Options:  Reply • Quote
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login

Online Users

Guests: 273
Record Number of Users: 52 on November 20, 2014
Record Number of Guests: 2330 on October 25, 2018