Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 9/12/2013 10:58:55 AM EDT
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything, just reading another thread about police check points caused a question to pop into my head.  (And here you thought my head was nothing but a big vacuum )

Once the SCOTUS makes a ruling, is it reversible by a later SCOTUS?  

I'll use Obamacare as an example.  (Again, this has nothing to do with anything real in my life, just using that as an example and asking out of pure curiosity.)  Our much hated SCOTUS, including the traitor John Roberts, declared that POS to be constitutional.  Let's say a miricle happens and conservatives take over both houses of Congress and also the White House.  Then we're fortunate enough to have all seven sitting judges retire at once.  Finally, we seat seven hard core conservative judges.  If someone brings another Obabmacare case in front of them, can they reverse the previous attrocity?
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 11:00:57 AM EDT

Once the SCOTUS makes a ruling, is it reversible by a later SCOTUS?
View Quote


Yes, but it seldom happens that way in our favor.
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 11:07:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/12/2013 11:10:17 AM EDT by danno-in-michigan]
Yes.  See, e.g., Justice Frank Murphy's famous "switch in time saves nine," which ushered in the era of federal government control over everything.  Murphy was from Michigan.  One of these days, I should really find his grave and piss on it.

edited to add:  According to Wikipedia, "His remains are interred at Our Lady of Lake Huron Cemetery of Harbor Beach, Michigan."  That's going to make things problematic but not impossible.
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 11:14:36 AM EDT
Research stare decisis. . .
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 11:24:40 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 2AFAN:
Research stare decisis. . .
View Quote

This.  It's almost unheard of that they will actually reverse themselves.

They do however invent ridiculously convoluted legaleze in order to go around a previous decision.
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 11:32:22 AM EDT
They rarely reverse, usually they find a way to "distininguish".  Plessy v Ferguson was reversed by Brown v Board of Education, and that was pretty much a direct reversal. It took 70 years, though.
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 11:43:24 AM EDT
Cool.  Thanks guys
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 12:35:52 PM EDT
It should be noted that rulings may influence later cases by creating precedent, but they are not law in the way the constitution is law.  They apply to the specific parties in a case.  It should also be noted that SCOTUS rulings can be in violation of the constitution.  Alexander Hamilton suggested impeachment as the remedy for such bad behaviour.
Link Posted: 9/12/2013 12:41:13 PM EDT
It can evolve.
Screaming fire in a crowded theater thingy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States
Top Top