Archived Posts » 59,699,509
can the the supreme court reverse it's own ruling on past cases?
12/16/2011 6:53:51 PM
a case like Miller vs United State?
12/16/2011 8:56:05 PM
Yes.
Plessey v. Ferguson = separate but equal.
Brown v. Board of Education = separate is not equal.
I'd like to see the current court review Miller and apply its own dicta.
Plessey v. Ferguson = separate but equal.
Brown v. Board of Education = separate is not equal.
I'd like to see the current court review Miller and apply its own dicta.
12/16/2011 9:49:46 PM
Yes, though usually it's a longshot and not taken lightly.
12/16/2011 9:59:08 PM
Bowers v Hardwick ... Lawrence v Texas
12/18/2011 11:39:44 PM
Yes, but they generally don't under the doctrine of stare decisis.
12/19/2011 1:02:55 PM
Originally Posted By davewvu86:
Yes, but they generally don't under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Yes, but they generally don't under the doctrine of stare decisis.
This.
It throws a big wrench in the legal system to reverse cases, especially at the Supreme Court level.
Every case decided based on the original case that is reversed becomes open to litigation again.
You can look on wikipedia for the whole Latin phrase 'stare decisis' come from.
It acts to prevent re-litigating decided cases, and to obey precedence.
You will notice in may cases the Supreme Court does not explicitly reverse itself, but figures a different path to the decision they make.
The 14th amendment and the Slaughterhouse cases are a good example.
The court limited the scope of the 'privileges and immunities' clause, and later used the 'equal protection' clause of the amendment to effectively reverse the previous decision.
This left further case based on the original decision untouched, but later cases could use the new decision as a basis.
12/19/2011 1:07:22 PM
Yeah they rarely do a complete 180 and admit they changed their minds. Instead they find cases that seem to a normal person to be identical but find contrived differences to carve out exceptions to ignore the old case law they don't like anymore.
12/19/2011 1:28:56 PM
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
12/19/2011 2:10:48 PM
Originally Posted By brickeyee:
This.
It throws a big wrench in the legal system to reverse cases, especially at the Supreme Court level.
Every case decided based on the original case that is reversed becomes open to litigation again.
You can look on wikipedia for the whole Latin phrase 'stare decisis' come from.
It acts to prevent re-litigating decided cases, and to obey precedence.
You will notice in may cases the Supreme Court does not explicitly reverse itself, but figures a different path to the decision they make.
The 14th amendment and the Slaughterhouse cases are a good example.
The court limited the scope of the 'privileges and immunities' clause, and later used the 'equal protection' clause of the amendment to effectively reverse the previous decision.
This left further case based on the original decision untouched, but later cases could use the new decision as a basis.
Originally Posted By davewvu86:
Yes, but they generally don't under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Yes, but they generally don't under the doctrine of stare decisis.
This.
It throws a big wrench in the legal system to reverse cases, especially at the Supreme Court level.
Every case decided based on the original case that is reversed becomes open to litigation again.
You can look on wikipedia for the whole Latin phrase 'stare decisis' come from.
It acts to prevent re-litigating decided cases, and to obey precedence.
You will notice in may cases the Supreme Court does not explicitly reverse itself, but figures a different path to the decision they make.
The 14th amendment and the Slaughterhouse cases are a good example.
The court limited the scope of the 'privileges and immunities' clause, and later used the 'equal protection' clause of the amendment to effectively reverse the previous decision.
This left further case based on the original decision untouched, but later cases could use the new decision as a basis.
what sway does Marbury v. Madison "all laws that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void" have?
12/19/2011 3:08:36 PM
Originally Posted By henrybowman20mm:
what sway does Marbury v. Madison "all laws that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void" have?
Originally Posted By brickeyee:
This.
It throws a big wrench in the legal system to reverse cases, especially at the Supreme Court level.
Every case decided based on the original case that is reversed becomes open to litigation again.
You can look on wikipedia for the whole Latin phrase 'stare decisis' come from.
It acts to prevent re-litigating decided cases, and to obey precedence.
You will notice in may cases the Supreme Court does not explicitly reverse itself, but figures a different path to the decision they make.
The 14th amendment and the Slaughterhouse cases are a good example.
The court limited the scope of the 'privileges and immunities' clause, and later used the 'equal protection' clause of the amendment to effectively reverse the previous decision.
This left further case based on the original decision untouched, but later cases could use the new decision as a basis.
Originally Posted By davewvu86:
Yes, but they generally don't under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Yes, but they generally don't under the doctrine of stare decisis.
This.
It throws a big wrench in the legal system to reverse cases, especially at the Supreme Court level.
Every case decided based on the original case that is reversed becomes open to litigation again.
You can look on wikipedia for the whole Latin phrase 'stare decisis' come from.
It acts to prevent re-litigating decided cases, and to obey precedence.
You will notice in may cases the Supreme Court does not explicitly reverse itself, but figures a different path to the decision they make.
The 14th amendment and the Slaughterhouse cases are a good example.
The court limited the scope of the 'privileges and immunities' clause, and later used the 'equal protection' clause of the amendment to effectively reverse the previous decision.
This left further case based on the original decision untouched, but later cases could use the new decision as a basis.
what sway does Marbury v. Madison "all laws that are repugnant to the constitution are null and void" have?
Who decides what is " repugnant to the constitution"?
12/19/2011 5:06:07 PM
Originally Posted By henrybowman20mm:
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
No.
Is there a point to this thread?
12/19/2011 11:29:33 PM
Originally Posted By henrybowman20mm:
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
No. In theory he could direct federal employees/ agencies to not enforce those laws*- but then he would be derelcting his duty to enforce the laws of the United States. Remember that to date, those laws have not only not been found uncostitutional by any court (much less the Supreme Court), but rather all three have been specifically affirmed,
*Which would be political suicide and be a political stunt that could be back-tracked on at any moment or by a successor...e.g. statute of limitations is three years, you commit an offense under the x administration in year y when that administration maintains of a policy of not prosecuting violators, one could still be prosecuted in year y+2 when the x or z administration might decide to prosecute offenders again.
12/20/2011 2:12:33 AM
It sounds to me like someone is looking for help on a paper or take home exam 
12/20/2011 2:51:13 AM
Originally Posted By davewvu86:
It sounds to me like someone is looking for help on a paper or take home exam
It sounds to me like someone is looking for help on a paper or take home exam
It is finals time....hey, I have a tax question when we're done with 1L Con Law...isn't Con Law a 2nd semester course?
12/20/2011 6:30:25 AM
Here toy go.
This is on a state level, but explains how a Supreme Court went about reversing itself, and the Court itself goes into some detail about why stare decisis should occasionally be subordinate to other concerns.
The article is snarky and defense oriented, but informative. From link, analyzing case-
"Quoting from a concurring opinion of Justice Roberts of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Nahmias says that stare decisis is a "principle of policy” and can be set aside by balancing the "importance of having the question decided against the importance of having it decided right” Those factors include:
This is on a state level, but explains how a Supreme Court went about reversing itself, and the Court itself goes into some detail about why stare decisis should occasionally be subordinate to other concerns.
The article is snarky and defense oriented, but informative. From link, analyzing case-
"Quoting from a concurring opinion of Justice Roberts of the United States Supreme Court, Justice Nahmias says that stare decisis is a "principle of policy” and can be set aside by balancing the "importance of having the question decided against the importance of having it decided right” Those factors include:
- the age of the precedent;
- the reliance interests at stake;
- the workability of the decision; and
- the soundness of the reasoning."
12/20/2011 11:40:51 PM
Originally Posted By emsjeep:
It is finals time....hey, I have a tax question when we're done with 1L Con Law...isn't Con Law a 2nd semester course?
Originally Posted By davewvu86:
It sounds to me like someone is looking for help on a paper or take home exam
It sounds to me like someone is looking for help on a paper or take home exam
It is finals time....hey, I have a tax question when we're done with 1L Con Law...isn't Con Law a 2nd semester course?
I had con law as a full year course my second year. One more semester of this crap left...
1/10/2012 1:13:31 PM
SC can do whatever the hell they want
1/10/2012 4:41:52 PM
Originally Posted By henrybowman20mm:
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
No. However, he could direct the head of the BATFE to hold an indefinite amnesty until the NFRTR could pass a legitimate data audit.
1/15/2012 10:22:25 AM
Originally Posted By JAD:
No. In theory he could direct federal employees/ agencies to not enforce those laws*- but then he would be derelcting his duty to enforce the laws of the United States. Remember that to date, those laws have not only not been found uncostitutional by any court (much less the Supreme Court), but rather all three have been specifically affirmed,
*Which would be political suicide and be a political stunt that could be back-tracked on at any moment or by a successor...e.g. statute of limitations is three years, you commit an offense under the x administration in year y when that administration maintains of a policy of not prosecuting violators, one could still be prosecuted in year y+2 when the x or z administration might decide to prosecute offenders again.
Originally Posted By henrybowman20mm:
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
No. In theory he could direct federal employees/ agencies to not enforce those laws*- but then he would be derelcting his duty to enforce the laws of the United States. Remember that to date, those laws have not only not been found uncostitutional by any court (much less the Supreme Court), but rather all three have been specifically affirmed,
*Which would be political suicide and be a political stunt that could be back-tracked on at any moment or by a successor...e.g. statute of limitations is three years, you commit an offense under the x administration in year y when that administration maintains of a policy of not prosecuting violators, one could still be prosecuted in year y+2 when the x or z administration might decide to prosecute offenders again.
he could have them not enforce it by not having Congress fund that aspect. He could also try to get an anmesty through. He could put a pro-gun person as head of the ATF. Other stuff indirectly without technically violating the law.
He could also use the power of the pardon if he wished. especially if he had a second term.
also. Has the US supreme court ever really considered the Hughes amendment? Every Constitutional lawyer I have ever talked to (including liberal ones) have stated the Hughes amendment is blantantly unconstitutional.
They all stated it should be a 9-0 decision to strike it down.
1/17/2012 11:48:14 AM
Originally Posted By JMD:
he could have them not enforce it by not having Congress fund that aspect. He could also try to get an anmesty through. He could put a pro-gun person as head of the ATF. Other stuff indirectly without technically violating the law.
He could also use the power of the pardon if he wished. especially if he had a second term.
also. Has the US supreme court ever really considered the Hughes amendment? Every Constitutional lawyer I have ever talked to (including liberal ones) have stated the Hughes amendment is blantantly unconstitutional.
They all stated it should be a 9-0 decision to strike it down.
Originally Posted By JAD:
No. In theory he could direct federal employees/ agencies to not enforce those laws*- but then he would be derelcting his duty to enforce the laws of the United States. Remember that to date, those laws have not only not been found uncostitutional by any court (much less the Supreme Court), but rather all three have been specifically affirmed,
*Which would be political suicide and be a political stunt that could be back-tracked on at any moment or by a successor...e.g. statute of limitations is three years, you commit an offense under the x administration in year y when that administration maintains of a policy of not prosecuting violators, one could still be prosecuted in year y+2 when the x or z administration might decide to prosecute offenders again.
Originally Posted By henrybowman20mm:
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
could the president.use Executive Order to end the NFA,GCA,and hughes amendment? i mean is tha wtihin his power from a legal stand point?
No. In theory he could direct federal employees/ agencies to not enforce those laws*- but then he would be derelcting his duty to enforce the laws of the United States. Remember that to date, those laws have not only not been found uncostitutional by any court (much less the Supreme Court), but rather all three have been specifically affirmed,
*Which would be political suicide and be a political stunt that could be back-tracked on at any moment or by a successor...e.g. statute of limitations is three years, you commit an offense under the x administration in year y when that administration maintains of a policy of not prosecuting violators, one could still be prosecuted in year y+2 when the x or z administration might decide to prosecute offenders again.
he could have them not enforce it by not having Congress fund that aspect. He could also try to get an anmesty through. He could put a pro-gun person as head of the ATF. Other stuff indirectly without technically violating the law.
He could also use the power of the pardon if he wished. especially if he had a second term.
also. Has the US supreme court ever really considered the Hughes amendment? Every Constitutional lawyer I have ever talked to (including liberal ones) have stated the Hughes amendment is blantantly unconstitutional.
They all stated it should be a 9-0 decision to strike it down.
Congress not funding would be nearly the same as striking the law.
It has the effect of making the law moot through the legislative process, not action by a single person through an executive order.
