Does everyone remember the hearings for the Supreme Court Justice Roberts and the endless questions he was asked about Stare Decisis and his oft repeated responses that of course he would honor Stare Decisis, that he had every intention of doing so. Of course the concern at that moment in time was the Roe vs Wade decision. Women were not about to seat a man to head the Supreme Court no matter how intelligent , even- tempered and ‘sane’ he appeared to be without strong assurance that he would in fact, honor Stare Decisis. It was settled – he would honor Stare Decisis. I was conflicted. Now I see why.
STARE DECISIS – Lat. “to stand by that which is decided.” The principal that the precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts.
To abide or adhere to decided cases. It is a general maxim that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from. The doctrine of stare decisis is not always to be relied upon, for the courts find it necessary to overrule cases which have been hastily decided, or contrary to principle. Many hundreds of such overruled cases may be found in the American and English books of reports.
An appeal court’s panel is “bound by decisions of prior panels unless an en banc decision, Supreme Court decision, or subsequent legislation undermines those decisions.” United States v. Washington, 872 F.2d 874, 880 (9th Cir. 1989).
Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, “It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . ‘is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.’” (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.) Accordingly, a party urging overruling a precedent faces a rightly onerous task, the difficulty of which is roughly proportional to a number of factors, including the age of the precedent, the nature and extent of public and private reliance on it, and its consistency or inconsistency with other related rules of law.
This is on my mind fellow Americans. It isn’t going away! Our way of life and very security stands in the balance and some thing must be done about it. Thinking people on both sides of the political aisle are stunned and stressed over this. It can not stand. Action will be taken. Meanwhile, intelligent people whom I respect keep writing about the Supreme Court Decision of last week over Corporate financial contributions which have now been changed to be without limit which will put ordinary citizens in jeopardy to EVER win any conflict with corporate interests. It defeats what we stand for here. There will be no justice for anyone Jan
Corporate cash will impair democracy
Turning its back on a century of practice and decades of precedent, a narrow right-wing majority on the court decided to change the U.S. political system by tilting it decisively in favor of corporate interests.
Think of a chat between a corporate lobbyist and a senator: “Are you going to block that bailout we want? Well, I’m sorry, but we’re going to run $2 million worth of vicious ads against you.” The same exchange might take place on tax breaks, consumer protections, environmental rules and worker safeguards.
Defenders of this vast expansion of corporate influence piously claim it’s about “free speech.” But since when is a corporation, a creation of laws passed by governments, entitled to the same rights as an individual citizen? This ruling will give large business entities far more power than any individual.
The only proper response to this distortion of our political system by ideologically driven justices is a popular revolt. It would be a revolt of a sort deeply rooted in the American political tradition. The most vibrant reform alliances in our history have involved coalitions between populists (who stand up for the interests and values of average citizens) and progressives (who fight against corruption in government and for institutional changes to improve the workings of our democracy). It’s time for a new populist-progressive alliance.
.This court ruling also should challenge the fake populism we have seen on display of late. It disguises a defense of the interests of the powerful behind crowd-pleasing rhetoric against “Washington,” “taxes” and, yes, “Obama.” President Barack Obama has helped feed this faux populist revolt by failing to understand until recently how deeply frustrated politically moderate, middle-class Americans are over policies that bailed out the banks while leaving behind millions of unemployed and millions more alarmed about their economic futures.
If average voters came to see government primarily as an instrument of the banks, why should they believe that the same government could help them on matters of health care and employment? Obama began taking a turn toward populism before the results of the Massachusetts Senate race rolled in. Republican Scott Brown’s victory made the turn imperative.
The president has now offered a modest tax on the big financial institutions to cover the costs of bailouts, and a tougher approach to banks that will limit their size and their capacity to make economy-wrecking financial bets. It’s a decent start, and it’s about time.
.Next will come legislation to turn back the Supreme Court’s effort to undermine democracy. Sen. Charles E. Schumer and Rep. Chris Van Hollen are working with the White House on a measure to rein in the Supreme Court ruling. Their ideas include prohibiting political spending by corporations that receive government money, hire lobbyists or make most of their income abroad. And shouldn’t shareholders have the right to vote before a corporation spends money on politics? Do we want foreign-owned corporations, especially those owned by foreign governments, to exercise an undue influence in our politics? Imagine what an enterprise owned or influenced by the Chinese or Russian governments might try to do to a politician who campaigns too ardently for human rights.
.My favorite idea: Requiring CEOs to appear in ads their corporations sponsor, exactly as politicians have to do. (“I’m Joe Smith, the CEO of Acme Consolidated Megacorporation, and I approve this message.”)
Obama was right to invoke Teddy Roosevelt in his radio address on Saturday. American democracy and the square deal in government for which TR battled are in jeopardy.
E.J. Dionne writes for the Washington Post Writers Group.
ejdionne
