English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2 answers

Precedent and "stare decisis" go back centuries to the common law courts of England. They are mentioned as essential in Supreme Court cases dating back to the 1820s. The concepts go back at least to the Code of Justian around 500 AD. And both are still necessary to have a stable functional court system. That doesn't mean rulings cannot change; only that such changes must be for a strong and valid reason, rather than being arbtirary or capricious.

So, it's the job of courts to interpret the laws, and to apply them to specific types of situations. And for stability sake, those decisions must have binding authority on lower courts through precedence. It's also the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, which includes applying that interpretation nationally.

The only alternative to having the Supreme Court not create precedent that is binding nationally is to throw away the doctrine of precedent entirely. That means that any court can come up with any interpretation, regardless of how the law was interpreted in the past. If the legislature wanted consistency, then the legislatures would have to modify and update the laws, based upon every interpretation that was decided by the courts. Every law would be constantly in flux, as the legislature tweaked wording and added exceptions into the statutes. So, either legislators would constantly need to update laws to reflect and include every possible later specific interpretation, or we lose any concept of stability and predictability in the legal system.

To avoid this, the English Common Law (and its American and Australian counterparts) allowed Judges to have their interpretations be independently binding, as case precedent. This way, the branch of government which is making the interpretations, the judiciary, is responsible for publishing and organizing its own common law declarations, rather than forcing the legislature to constantly be doing that.Remove the ability of the courts to make law and you drastically weaken the stability of the entire legal system.

2006-09-04 05:19:20 · answer #1 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0 0

Translated it means let the decision stand. Advantages: You were innocent. Disadvantages: You were guilty.

2006-09-04 01:44:16 · answer #2 · answered by Zelda 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers