Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - interpretations, stare decisis, and judicial activism/tyranny

joshbaumgartner · 12-12-2007, 12:36 AM

I'm going to try and answer what your asking. It's a great question. I agree that 'judicial activism' is a term used politically to oppose disliked decisions. I think perhaps 'judicial tyranny,' though less often used, percentage-wise is probably used as often to do the same thing, just with a stronger sentiment.

I think stare decisis is a good principle, because it means that when a case is heard, there can be a sense that people can rely on that decision when choosing their path going forward. I think though, the main value of it is that every court case doesn't have to become a re-hashing of every legal arguement along the way. If there was no such thing, then every criminal case, you could potentially have the whole constitutionality of the general principles of say, the evidence-gathering process, up for argument. Instead, once the courts have made it clear that a particular method is acceptable or not, then police departments know how to conduct themselves with the knowledge that if they play by the rules they can expect to bring the evidence to trial. In individual cases, if there are exceptions, the specific details can be argued as they relate to the case at hand. Naturally, defenses will often try anything to get an acquittal, but if you couldn't even rely on the standing judgments, then can you imagine the mess we would have? Also, if I'm not mistaken, isn't this part of the reason why the court, once it decides on a case, is not able to simply be overwhelmed by a flood of similar cases in the hope that through volume, a side will get a win in at least some of them?

On the other hand, I do think that the courts do owe past decisions a rethink every once in a while. This is especially true when changes in our society and developments in areas bring into question a decision's relevance.

What I do not like to see though, is the development of a culture in which every politically charged judgment is retried based on the changing composure of the court. I don't want to see as soon as the forces on one side of a debate think they have an advantage based on judicial appointments, to resubmit a case for reconsideration. If you want a decision revisited, the old rule of needing new evidence, or a substantial change in the environment upon which the decision was predicated, is a good rule.

12-12-2007, 12:36 AM	#11 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	I'm going to try and answer what your asking. It's a great question. I agree that 'judicial activism' is a term used politically to oppose disliked decisions. I think perhaps 'judicial tyranny,' though less often used, percentage-wise is probably used as often to do the same thing, just with a stronger sentiment. I think stare decisis is a good principle, because it means that when a case is heard, there can be a sense that people can rely on that decision when choosing their path going forward. I think though, the main value of it is that every court case doesn't have to become a re-hashing of every legal arguement along the way. If there was no such thing, then every criminal case, you could potentially have the whole constitutionality of the general principles of say, the evidence-gathering process, up for argument. Instead, once the courts have made it clear that a particular method is acceptable or not, then police departments know how to conduct themselves with the knowledge that if they play by the rules they can expect to bring the evidence to trial. In individual cases, if there are exceptions, the specific details can be argued as they relate to the case at hand. Naturally, defenses will often try anything to get an acquittal, but if you couldn't even rely on the standing judgments, then can you imagine the mess we would have? Also, if I'm not mistaken, isn't this part of the reason why the court, once it decides on a case, is not able to simply be overwhelmed by a flood of similar cases in the hope that through volume, a side will get a win in at least some of them? On the other hand, I do think that the courts do owe past decisions a rethink every once in a while. This is especially true when changes in our society and developments in areas bring into question a decision's relevance. What I do not like to see though, is the development of a culture in which every politically charged judgment is retried based on the changing composure of the court. I don't want to see as soon as the forces on one side of a debate think they have an advantage based on judicial appointments, to resubmit a case for reconsideration. If you want a decision revisited, the old rule of needing new evidence, or a substantial change in the environment upon which the decision was predicated, is a good rule.