Talk:Stare decisis

message: 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)
thread_title:  Issue not addressed 

message: 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)
replies: text: That paragraph was just so POV that I removed it. If someone thinks they can make it NPOV, feel free to restore it in a revised form. Clement Cherlin 20:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originalism -- bias/POV 

message: Can someone add relevant material on Stare Decisis wrt to the Alito hearings?
Pizzadeliveryboy 22:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alito 

message: 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)
replies: text: For this reason, Justice Thomas is viewed by many legal conservatives as the purest originalist on the Suprenme [sic] Court. One blawger has even coined a phrase in Justice Thomas's honor: "Stare decisis is fo' suckas!" [footnote omitted]
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)
thread_title:  We need to get rid of the blog garbage about Clarence Thomas 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hi Famspear, I agree that the section titled "How judges interpret statutes" could be removed.Ferrylodge 06:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some material not directly related to this article

message: I'm only aware of two countries (U.K. and China) where
the legislature acts as the highest court.
: The provision that the legislature had the final power to interpret laws was very common in Soviet style constitutions.  And I suspect that it might be in a few places.  (Maybe Cuba and North Korea, I haven't looked).  Also, the French Court of Cassation isn't now part of the legislature, but it started out that way.
: The China case is interesting because it's the first Soviet derived constitution in which the power actually means something.
:: Not sure that in practice in the UK the highest court is part of the legislature. References to the House Of Lords as a court nowadays refer to to the Judicial Committee of the HoL. Although members of the HoL the Law Lords cannot vote. This is just another of the gaps between theory and practice in the UK constitution - the plans to form a supreme court should bring the two closer together.
::: At the risk of being picky, Law Lords are only prohibited from voting in the House of Lords by convention - and it is a convention that they do not always follow.  For instance, two Law Lords voted on the Hunting Bill. 80.229.220.14 13:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the convention can be set aside without major upheaval, it's definitely not just being picky. Nentuaby (talk) 17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legislature 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's partially correct.  The correct rule is as follows: "[F]ederal courts are bound by decisions of a state's intermediate appellate courts unless there is persuasive evidence that the highest state court would rule otherwise."  King v. Order of United Comm. Travelers of Am., 333 U.S. 153 (1948). --Coolcaesar (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: What does the superscript 1 in the IPA mean?--92.78.109.57 (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: 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)
thread_title: This article is missing something important