![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is a federal district court within, say, the 9th circuit required under stare decisis to follow the holding of an appellate district court within, say, the 1st circuit? The article quotes California state law that state superior courts are bound by state appellate courts regardless of where in California these courts reside, but it is not stated whether the same rule applies in the federal arena. Jordan 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto ( talk • contribs)
I think you guys wanted to say "legislators". Only some U.S. state judges are elected (what a lousy 19th century populist system!). Most judges in other parts of the world are not elected by uneducated beer-drinking wife-beating voters. :) -- Toytoy 23:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Selectively quoting from the relevant section:
Likewise, on the other side of the debate, it is almost impossible to determine from whence Justice Douglas pulled his opinion for the court in Griswold v. Connecticut; it cannot be supported by precedent, and so there seems to be broad bipartisan consensus in American constitutional law that stare decisis should be considered inviolate, provided it agrees with your point of view, and discarded (or actively overruled) in all other cases.
This just seems unprofessional and POV. Edits needed [the entire section was added 11 Aug by a Simon Dodd]? Majromax 21:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
POV statements still remain in the Originalism section: "Originalism - the doctrine that holds that the meaning of a written text must be applied..." seems to me rather biased in favor of Originalism as the supreme method of interpretation. How many doctrines of interpretation are there that don't feel 'the meaning of a written text must be applied'? Presenting the definition without any nuance, In my view, is not a NPOV. Need there even be a definition of Originalism in the sentence? I don't plan to remove it unless there is a concurrence on the matter. Vonsnip 02:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Can someone add relevant material on Stare Decisis wrt to the Alito hearings?
Pizzadeliveryboy 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) ipkmr'tpir ]jmthbgtebhtebh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.14.34 ( talk) 02:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I follow the legal newspapers closely and NO ONE has quoted that blogger's statement. Even if it's funny and probably true, it's not a well-known comment on Thomas and it's definitely not in proper encyclopedic style. We need to get it out of this article. -- Coolcaesar 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
On 22 June 2006, the following language was deleted:
First, the phrase "is viewed by many legal conservatives" is an example of "weasel words". Second, while it may be interesting that Justice Thomas is viewed by certain unspecified persons as the "purest" originalist (presumably implying that there are variations and gradations of "purity" with respect to originalism, and that Thomas's "purity" is somehow notable for purposes of an article on stare decisis), this is unverifiable. Third, the coining of a humorous phrase by a "blawger" (web logger) who is apparently at best a tertiary source for information about the legal doctrine of stare decisis is in my opinion tangential in the extreme with respect to an encyclopedia article on the topic. This isn't even presented as Justice Thomas's out of court statement; it's a coinage by a blogger. Yours, Famspear 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The new material in the article about Marjorie Rombauer is of dubious merit. It is stated that she is providing an "alternative" to dividing the principle of stare decisis into two components: vertical and horizontal. Is she the only one advocating abandonment of that traditional understanding of stare decisis? Is she the only one who says that "precedent" and "stare decisis" are distinct concepts? Is she the only one who says that one legal system can set a "precedent" for another legal system? These ideas seem highly idiosyncratic and unorthodox, and they do not belong in an intoductory paragraph about the principle of stare decisis, IMHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
“ | Some instances of disregarding precedent are almost universally considered inappropriate. For example, in a rare showing of unity in a Supreme Court opinion discussing judicial activism, [FN154] Justice Stevens wrote that a circuit court "engaged in an indefensible brand of judicial activism" when it "refused to follow" a "controlling precedent" of the Supreme Court. [FN155] The rule that lower courts should abide by controlling precedent, sometimes called "vertical precedent," [FN156] can safely be called settled law. [FN157] It appears to be equally well accepted that the act of disregarding vertical precedent qualifies as one kind of judicial activism. "Horizontal precedent," the doctrine requiring a court "to follow its own prior decisions in similar cases," [FN158] is a more complicated and debatable matter. Many judges have deemed activist the failure to adhere to horizontal precedent. [FN159] For example, Justice Brennan, dissenting in Engle v. Issac, [FN160] labeled the majority's treatment of a habeas corpus case a "conspicuous exercise in judicial activism--particularly so since it takes the form of disregard of precedent scarcely a month old." [FN161] Likewise, a dissent by Justice Stevens in one of the Court's recent Eleventh Amendment cases mentions several reasons why he believes the majority in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents to be mistaken. [FN162] Chief among these is that, "by its own repeated overruling of earlier precedent, the majority has itself discounted the importance of stare decisis in this area of the law." [FN163] This "kind of judicial activism," Justice Stevens explains, is "such a radical departure from the proper role of this Court that it should be opposed whenever the opportunity arises." [FN164] Yet, academics argue that it is sometimes proper to disregard horizontal precedent. Professor Gary Lawson, for example, has argued that stare decisis itself may be unconstitutional if it requires the Court to adhere to an erroneous reading of the Constitution. [FN165] "If the Constitution says X and a prior judicial decision says Y, a court has not merely the power, but the obligation, to prefer the Constitution." [FN166] In the same vein, Professors Ahkil Amar and Vikram Amar [FN167] have stated, "Our general view is that the Rehnquist Court's articulated theory of stare decisis tends to improperly elevate judicial doctrine over the Constitution itself. It does so, they argue, by requiring excessive deference to past decisions that themselves may have been misinterpretations of the law of the land." [FN168] For Lawson, Akhil Amar, and Vikram Amar, dismissing erroneous horizontal precedent would not be judicial activism; instead, it would be appropriate constitutional decisionmaking. | ” |
Dear Ferrylodge: Yes, based on just skimming what you've inserted. I'll defer to you on taking the first stab at it, as I haven't read the article (yet).
Now you've piqued my interest regarding Rombauer. I guess I need to re-read her work (it's been years). What I have in my possession is only an extended excerpt from one chapter of her book (chapter 2, entitled "Interpreting and Predicting the Common Law.") I'll try to find time later to go through it based on your comments and see if there's anything there that we should consider.
As you can tell, I don't make too many edits to this article. My main interest in Wikipedia is in the Federal taxation articles. Wow, it's late. Gotta get to bed. Yours, Famspear 06:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This article includes quite a bit of information that probably would fit more cogently in the article on Statutory interpretation. The concept of statutory construction -- how courts interpret statutes -- is not central to the concept of stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis relates instead to how courts treat prior court decisions. Should some of the material be moved to the other article? Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm only aware of two countries (U.K. and China) where the legislature acts as the highest court.
This doesn't seem to have much to do with stare decisis
Since this article is quite obviously shrouded in unverifiable and biased claims, would it not be best to start ab initio on it, and assign it to the appropriate section of Wikipedia id est, Common Law? I'm an Irish lawyer, and was looking for a good legal definition of "stare decisis". Whilst Wikipedia gives some very concise definitions for legal principles, this article is firstly, too lengthy, and secondly, too Americanized.
It's important to remember that common law jurisprudence is a world-wide phenomenon, and thus, lengthy discourse on American Supreme Court judgements is inappropriate for the context. I would suggest stripping down the article to the first paragraph, giving the Latin, the definition, and the interesting iota on the maxim about sleeping dogs etc.
Since the Doctrine of Stare Decisis is one of the most basic principles of the common law, it also should be flagged for the Common Law section of Wiki.
Also, what's your reference for the Latin pronunciation? It is my understanding that slender vowels soften consonents in Latin as well.
Cheers, Hullaballoo84 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the opening quote from the Ninth Circuit contradicts other statements in wikipedia and other statements on this same page. That quote interprets the doctrine of stare decisis to narrowly apply only to the prior court decisions, and not the legal reasoning behind the decisions (aka the ratio decidendi). After looking at the case in question, IRS v. Osborne ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9455890), it seems that the Ninth Circuit thinks that it's not bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous way of thinking.
Yet, the page on ratio decidendi says, "... the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding." Other web sources appear to agree on this point. I'd like to see this point clarified and the Ninth Circuit quote put into that context. Anybody have any feelings on this? -- Lockley ( talk) 04:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Separately, the statement that US Federal courts "are required normally to defer to the precedents of intermediate state courts as well" is without substantiation and may not be correct. It may be more accurate to say that intermediate state appellate decisions may rather be treated as (weighty) persuasive authority, not binding or mandatory authority, by a federal court. -- Poludamas ( talk) 18:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
What does the superscript 1 in the IPA mean?-- 92.78.109.57 ( talk) 12:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a section on CONSEQUENCES! I mean, honestly, prior decisions of higher courts are supposed to be "binding" on inferior courts, but... what are the consequences if an inferior judge disregards binding precedent in his decisions?
Appellate Judge: You HAVE to rule this way!
District Judge: Umm... go fuck yourself! I'll rule how I want, and roll the dice! What's the worst that can ACTUALLY happen to me?
Appellate Judge: Umm... well... you've got a point, there.
Honestly, this whole "stare decisis" thing makes little sense, without actual consequences for violating it! Wikieditor1988 ( talk) 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is a federal district court within, say, the 9th circuit required under stare decisis to follow the holding of an appellate district court within, say, the 1st circuit? The article quotes California state law that state superior courts are bound by state appellate courts regardless of where in California these courts reside, but it is not stated whether the same rule applies in the federal arena. Jordan 21:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto ( talk • contribs)
I think you guys wanted to say "legislators". Only some U.S. state judges are elected (what a lousy 19th century populist system!). Most judges in other parts of the world are not elected by uneducated beer-drinking wife-beating voters. :) -- Toytoy 23:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Selectively quoting from the relevant section:
Likewise, on the other side of the debate, it is almost impossible to determine from whence Justice Douglas pulled his opinion for the court in Griswold v. Connecticut; it cannot be supported by precedent, and so there seems to be broad bipartisan consensus in American constitutional law that stare decisis should be considered inviolate, provided it agrees with your point of view, and discarded (or actively overruled) in all other cases.
This just seems unprofessional and POV. Edits needed [the entire section was added 11 Aug by a Simon Dodd]? Majromax 21:09, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
POV statements still remain in the Originalism section: "Originalism - the doctrine that holds that the meaning of a written text must be applied..." seems to me rather biased in favor of Originalism as the supreme method of interpretation. How many doctrines of interpretation are there that don't feel 'the meaning of a written text must be applied'? Presenting the definition without any nuance, In my view, is not a NPOV. Need there even be a definition of Originalism in the sentence? I don't plan to remove it unless there is a concurrence on the matter. Vonsnip 02:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Can someone add relevant material on Stare Decisis wrt to the Alito hearings?
Pizzadeliveryboy 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC) ipkmr'tpir ]jmthbgtebhtebh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.91.14.34 ( talk) 02:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I follow the legal newspapers closely and NO ONE has quoted that blogger's statement. Even if it's funny and probably true, it's not a well-known comment on Thomas and it's definitely not in proper encyclopedic style. We need to get it out of this article. -- Coolcaesar 08:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
On 22 June 2006, the following language was deleted:
First, the phrase "is viewed by many legal conservatives" is an example of "weasel words". Second, while it may be interesting that Justice Thomas is viewed by certain unspecified persons as the "purest" originalist (presumably implying that there are variations and gradations of "purity" with respect to originalism, and that Thomas's "purity" is somehow notable for purposes of an article on stare decisis), this is unverifiable. Third, the coining of a humorous phrase by a "blawger" (web logger) who is apparently at best a tertiary source for information about the legal doctrine of stare decisis is in my opinion tangential in the extreme with respect to an encyclopedia article on the topic. This isn't even presented as Justice Thomas's out of court statement; it's a coinage by a blogger. Yours, Famspear 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
The new material in the article about Marjorie Rombauer is of dubious merit. It is stated that she is providing an "alternative" to dividing the principle of stare decisis into two components: vertical and horizontal. Is she the only one advocating abandonment of that traditional understanding of stare decisis? Is she the only one who says that "precedent" and "stare decisis" are distinct concepts? Is she the only one who says that one legal system can set a "precedent" for another legal system? These ideas seem highly idiosyncratic and unorthodox, and they do not belong in an intoductory paragraph about the principle of stare decisis, IMHO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ferrylodge ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC).
“ | Some instances of disregarding precedent are almost universally considered inappropriate. For example, in a rare showing of unity in a Supreme Court opinion discussing judicial activism, [FN154] Justice Stevens wrote that a circuit court "engaged in an indefensible brand of judicial activism" when it "refused to follow" a "controlling precedent" of the Supreme Court. [FN155] The rule that lower courts should abide by controlling precedent, sometimes called "vertical precedent," [FN156] can safely be called settled law. [FN157] It appears to be equally well accepted that the act of disregarding vertical precedent qualifies as one kind of judicial activism. "Horizontal precedent," the doctrine requiring a court "to follow its own prior decisions in similar cases," [FN158] is a more complicated and debatable matter. Many judges have deemed activist the failure to adhere to horizontal precedent. [FN159] For example, Justice Brennan, dissenting in Engle v. Issac, [FN160] labeled the majority's treatment of a habeas corpus case a "conspicuous exercise in judicial activism--particularly so since it takes the form of disregard of precedent scarcely a month old." [FN161] Likewise, a dissent by Justice Stevens in one of the Court's recent Eleventh Amendment cases mentions several reasons why he believes the majority in Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents to be mistaken. [FN162] Chief among these is that, "by its own repeated overruling of earlier precedent, the majority has itself discounted the importance of stare decisis in this area of the law." [FN163] This "kind of judicial activism," Justice Stevens explains, is "such a radical departure from the proper role of this Court that it should be opposed whenever the opportunity arises." [FN164] Yet, academics argue that it is sometimes proper to disregard horizontal precedent. Professor Gary Lawson, for example, has argued that stare decisis itself may be unconstitutional if it requires the Court to adhere to an erroneous reading of the Constitution. [FN165] "If the Constitution says X and a prior judicial decision says Y, a court has not merely the power, but the obligation, to prefer the Constitution." [FN166] In the same vein, Professors Ahkil Amar and Vikram Amar [FN167] have stated, "Our general view is that the Rehnquist Court's articulated theory of stare decisis tends to improperly elevate judicial doctrine over the Constitution itself. It does so, they argue, by requiring excessive deference to past decisions that themselves may have been misinterpretations of the law of the land." [FN168] For Lawson, Akhil Amar, and Vikram Amar, dismissing erroneous horizontal precedent would not be judicial activism; instead, it would be appropriate constitutional decisionmaking. | ” |
Dear Ferrylodge: Yes, based on just skimming what you've inserted. I'll defer to you on taking the first stab at it, as I haven't read the article (yet).
Now you've piqued my interest regarding Rombauer. I guess I need to re-read her work (it's been years). What I have in my possession is only an extended excerpt from one chapter of her book (chapter 2, entitled "Interpreting and Predicting the Common Law.") I'll try to find time later to go through it based on your comments and see if there's anything there that we should consider.
As you can tell, I don't make too many edits to this article. My main interest in Wikipedia is in the Federal taxation articles. Wow, it's late. Gotta get to bed. Yours, Famspear 06:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
This article includes quite a bit of information that probably would fit more cogently in the article on Statutory interpretation. The concept of statutory construction -- how courts interpret statutes -- is not central to the concept of stare decisis. The doctrine of stare decisis relates instead to how courts treat prior court decisions. Should some of the material be moved to the other article? Any thoughts, anyone? Yours, Famspear 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm only aware of two countries (U.K. and China) where the legislature acts as the highest court.
This doesn't seem to have much to do with stare decisis
Since this article is quite obviously shrouded in unverifiable and biased claims, would it not be best to start ab initio on it, and assign it to the appropriate section of Wikipedia id est, Common Law? I'm an Irish lawyer, and was looking for a good legal definition of "stare decisis". Whilst Wikipedia gives some very concise definitions for legal principles, this article is firstly, too lengthy, and secondly, too Americanized.
It's important to remember that common law jurisprudence is a world-wide phenomenon, and thus, lengthy discourse on American Supreme Court judgements is inappropriate for the context. I would suggest stripping down the article to the first paragraph, giving the Latin, the definition, and the interesting iota on the maxim about sleeping dogs etc.
Since the Doctrine of Stare Decisis is one of the most basic principles of the common law, it also should be flagged for the Common Law section of Wiki.
Also, what's your reference for the Latin pronunciation? It is my understanding that slender vowels soften consonents in Latin as well.
Cheers, Hullaballoo84 14:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the opening quote from the Ninth Circuit contradicts other statements in wikipedia and other statements on this same page. That quote interprets the doctrine of stare decisis to narrowly apply only to the prior court decisions, and not the legal reasoning behind the decisions (aka the ratio decidendi). After looking at the case in question, IRS v. Osborne ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=9th&navby=case&no=9455890), it seems that the Ninth Circuit thinks that it's not bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous way of thinking.
Yet, the page on ratio decidendi says, "... the ratio decidendi is, as a general rule, binding." Other web sources appear to agree on this point. I'd like to see this point clarified and the Ninth Circuit quote put into that context. Anybody have any feelings on this? -- Lockley ( talk) 04:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Separately, the statement that US Federal courts "are required normally to defer to the precedents of intermediate state courts as well" is without substantiation and may not be correct. It may be more accurate to say that intermediate state appellate decisions may rather be treated as (weighty) persuasive authority, not binding or mandatory authority, by a federal court. -- Poludamas ( talk) 18:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
What does the superscript 1 in the IPA mean?-- 92.78.109.57 ( talk) 12:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
This article needs a section on CONSEQUENCES! I mean, honestly, prior decisions of higher courts are supposed to be "binding" on inferior courts, but... what are the consequences if an inferior judge disregards binding precedent in his decisions?
Appellate Judge: You HAVE to rule this way!
District Judge: Umm... go fuck yourself! I'll rule how I want, and roll the dice! What's the worst that can ACTUALLY happen to me?
Appellate Judge: Umm... well... you've got a point, there.
Honestly, this whole "stare decisis" thing makes little sense, without actual consequences for violating it! Wikieditor1988 ( talk) 19:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)