John Roberts
For some reason, I love finding interesting things on CSPAN to watch late at night. Maybe it is just because I am bored and there is nothing else on TV, but nevertheless, some things are interesting -- particularly those shows where senators grill people, in this case John Roberts.
I was watching it last night and the prevailing word was stare decisis. I remembered hearing this word in my political science class and from context I reminded myself that it meant relying on previous decisions for cases before you. I am questioning myself as to whether I believe in this principle. On the one hand, I agree with it because of the reliability and consistency of the court decisions. On the other hand, if court decisions are based on the constitution being a living document, then cannot court decisions be "living decisions"? Isn't it a question of whether the times change and so must court decisions? Certainly the other line of questioning comes into play here about some things decidable at face value versus others must take into account the facts, but what about the times? To what effect do they play in relation to stare decisis?
The other thing I want to comment on is this line of questioning about not only using "domestic stare decisis" but "foreign stare dicisis" as well; that is, using decisions from foreign courts as basis for domestic court battles. What a bunch of crap! Roberts certainly handled this line of questioning well, but the one common sense answer was not spoken. If the purpose of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the (American) law (judicial branch), how in the world could a foreign court based on foreign law even remotely have a possibility of involvement?
And one final comment: I am very much in favor separation of powers meaning that the judicial branch should not in any way shape or form legislate. True, there are some aspects of the Constitution that are open for debate an interpretation, but isn't there a difference between interpretation of current law and legislation? The argument may be made that by interpreting vague phrases in the constitution, the judical branch is thereby legislating, but I am arguing that the process must be much more careful here.
Anyone have any thoughts out there?
I was watching it last night and the prevailing word was stare decisis. I remembered hearing this word in my political science class and from context I reminded myself that it meant relying on previous decisions for cases before you. I am questioning myself as to whether I believe in this principle. On the one hand, I agree with it because of the reliability and consistency of the court decisions. On the other hand, if court decisions are based on the constitution being a living document, then cannot court decisions be "living decisions"? Isn't it a question of whether the times change and so must court decisions? Certainly the other line of questioning comes into play here about some things decidable at face value versus others must take into account the facts, but what about the times? To what effect do they play in relation to stare decisis?
The other thing I want to comment on is this line of questioning about not only using "domestic stare decisis" but "foreign stare dicisis" as well; that is, using decisions from foreign courts as basis for domestic court battles. What a bunch of crap! Roberts certainly handled this line of questioning well, but the one common sense answer was not spoken. If the purpose of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the (American) law (judicial branch), how in the world could a foreign court based on foreign law even remotely have a possibility of involvement?
And one final comment: I am very much in favor separation of powers meaning that the judicial branch should not in any way shape or form legislate. True, there are some aspects of the Constitution that are open for debate an interpretation, but isn't there a difference between interpretation of current law and legislation? The argument may be made that by interpreting vague phrases in the constitution, the judical branch is thereby legislating, but I am arguing that the process must be much more careful here.
Anyone have any thoughts out there?
posted by Jason Hyman at 9/14/2005 06:54:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home