Stare Decisis and Whistling Past the Graveyard

Among the churning mass of Liberal convulsions brought on by the John Roberts nomination, we are seeing a heretofore little known "legal doctrine" mentioned, with numbing regularity, by the Liberal media and commentariat.

"Stare decisis" translated into American (as Floyd R. Turbo might say) means "let the decision stand". Further translating, a judge who strongly adheres to stare decisis would be a judge who generally would frown on attempts to overturn prior decisions of the Supreme Court.

While stare decisis has an important role to play in the broad application of constitutional law, it is by no means a trip wire that one must avoid at all costs.

Where were the proponents of stare decisis when Earl Warren, William Brennen and Harry Blackmun where running amuck in the 50's, 60's, & 70's? Where were the sensibilities of the great Liberals of the day when the Warren Court smashed long standing precedent after long standing precedent in pursuit of their political agenda?

If stare decisis were preeminent among legal principles and guideposts, wouldn't Dred Scott still be the law of the land? And if stare decisis is inviolate as a principle of constitutional law then shouldn't we apply it as well to criminal proceedings? A little stare decisis would go along way toward lessening the load on our overburdened courts of appeal.

Almost anyone with a dash of common sense realizes that a Supreme Court that constantly revised and meddled with decided cases would undercut the stability of the entire system. Imagine that if each time a new justice was sworn in the court would revote on all the 5-4 decisions of the past 30 years. Chaos would ensue.

That path would be roughly as absurd as the one now being suggested (demanded?) by the avid supporters of stare decisis. These jokers would have us fall for the notion that there are SUPER DECISIONS that shall never be over turned. Naturally Roe V. Wade is first in line on their list of SUPER DECISIONS.

Nonsense and phooey.

And Then There Were Four

Reliable conservatives on the Supreme Court, that is. Following the likely confirmation of John Roberts, the Supreme Court will have a near majority of honest to goodness conservative justices for the first time in over a decade. Since Ruth Ginsberg replaced Byron White, the Court has been made up of three groups. The Liberal Four (currently Breyer, Souter, Ginsberg & Stevens) the Wishy Washy Two (Kennedy & O'Connor) , and the Conservative Three (Rehnquist, Thomas & Scalia).

Fortunately for Conservatives (and the Republic) The Wishy Washy Two never completely succumbed to the blandishments of The Dark Side and thus we have had a dozen years of moderation/compromise/goulash. It seemed that for ever really awful ruling, there was one that was fairly decent, and thus an uneven stasis was maintained.

It has been amusing to watch both Liberals and Conservatives take turns being happy and gloomy the past few days. Neither side seems quite able to decide whether this "stealth" candidate is Santa Claus or the Bogey Man.

Amongst all the breathless chatter about how Roberts' votes will differ from O'Connor's almost no one has publicly considered how Roberts' personality will affect the OTHER Justices. Only on this Liberal web site have I seen anyone put their finger on this important issue. The closing lines say it well:

"Kennedy probably won’t budge on the core issue of reproductive rights, but in other areas, he may be up for grabs. In fact, should Roberts be confirmed, his impact on Justice Kennedy is likely to be the most important near-term effect of his arrival at the Court. "

Robert's effect on Kennedy is THE most profound short term question.