The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
So, Stare Decisis Means Nothing To RBG and AMK re Sales Tax
| curious theatre ape | 06/21/18 |
| wonderful opaque senate national security agency | 06/21/18 |
| curious theatre ape | 06/21/18 |
| brindle site | 06/21/18 |
| curious theatre ape | 06/21/18 |
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 21st, 2018 2:11 PM Author: curious theatre ape but roe v wade is thuper-prethedent and can never be overturned! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007316&forum_id=2#36285200) |
Date: June 21st, 2018 2:23 PM Author: wonderful opaque senate national security agency Do they think Roe was wrongly decided? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007316&forum_id=2#36285265) |
 |
Date: June 21st, 2018 2:26 PM Author: curious theatre ape nope, but they hide behind the thuper-prethdent bullshit to avoid having to defend this TTT decision, and they use the thuper-prethdent rhetoric in the face of any attempt by the right to overturn it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007316&forum_id=2#36285285) |
|
Date: June 21st, 2018 7:52 PM Author: brindle site It seems a particularly bad case for over-ruling precedent, in that Congress has had the ability to over turn Quill, which is over 25 years old, but has not done so, but the Court steps in anyway and decides to change the tax policy where Congress has chosen not to do so despite ample opportunity.
The physical presence rule was a dumb rule and needed to be eliminated, but it wasn't the Court's job to make that call.
In the cases like abortion rights, which Congress can't over-rule, it maybe makes more sense for Courts to reconsider whether the right decision had been made in cases where there is no other effective check on historic bad decisions |
|
Date: June 21st, 2018 7:59 PM Author: curious theatre ape re the last paragraph, that's the whole "thuper-prethedent" argument... that somehow roe is more correctly decided bc the court got it wrong a second time in casey. this is a case where the court overruled what is arguably "super-precedent" when congress could have acted. even the roberts dissent seems to have no liking for the concept of super-precedent. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4007316&forum_id=2#36287219) |