NathanG Post 4 nony - Yes, judicial precedent can be overturned. In this way, they can honor precedent while overturning it at the same time. Each political party sees it as a way to stack the deck in favor of advancing their political agenda. Congressmen have to walk a tight-rope in how they question a judicial nominee.
In one hearing I saw on television, senators pressed the nominee over and over to determine how he might rule in a case involving an established, albeit controversial, law.
The subject of legal precedent comes up often. They ask if the justice respects legal precedent; if they understand that prior rulings on some of these hot button political issues are established, binding precedents.
Judicial nominees of course always respond that they respect legal precedent; that they would not come to the court as activist judges. No judicial nominee admits what we all know and fear: There has been discussions about this in the legal community lately.
On the "pro" side of case law - someone who is going before a judge can pretty much figure out how his case will go, if the circumstances are the same as cases that came before.
If the case law needs to be changed, the legislature can do that. On the "con" side - if the judge uses case law incorrectly, it can continue to be used improperly.
Sometimes, in legal cases, a judge can make decisions based on case law that are changed little by little until they are very different from constitutional laws.
Legal matters are very complicated. But, I think it's important from time to time to make some changes to keep things as fair as possible. Misscoco Post 1 About twenty years ago, I took legal classes to become a paralegal. I remember studying the doctrine of binding precedent and relying on case law.
Is relying on case law really the fairest way to decide a court case? We can't have judges using a few cases of law to decide a case. Judges need to be consistent, not helter skelter when deciding a case. Does anyone have opinions on the pros and cons of using case law?The High Court's Use of the Doctrine of Precedent Many recent decisions by the High Court have come under the spotlight of public scrutiny.
Questions have been raised over the Court's adherence to the Doctrine of Precedent and the Separation of Powers doctrine.
Firstly, it will explain what is the doctrine of precedent and, secondly, defines the Stare Decisis, the Ratio Dicidendi and the Obiter Dicta. Lastly, the types of precedent and how the doctrine of precedent operates will be represented.
The English court structure is consisted of five levels of courts. The only purpose that the doctrine of precedent serves is for the maintenance of “certainty in law and its orderly development” and it provides a means by which lower courts can benefit from the “learning, wisdom and general greater judicial ability of higher courts.” In this regard the doctrine of precedent serves a useful purpose, and when it fails to serve that purpose can be departed from, thereby .
Doctrine of Judicial Binding Precedent This question raises the issue of the role of precedent. In order to examine the statement, scrutiny of the doctrine of the judicial precedent is required.
Case law is used to describe the collection of reported decisions of the courts, and the principles which stem from them. Courts like the Crown Court are trial courts, dealing for the most part with (p.
) fact and evidence rather than questions of high legal analysis. They do not, therefore, create precedent. They do not, therefore, create precedent. Sasha Volokh Sasha Volokh lives in Atlanta with his wife and three kids, and is an associate professor at Emory Law School.
He has written numerous articles and commentaries on law and economics.