"Well if I find it doesn't make any sense ... I think we should demand that, no matter what the case is, that it has more than just a simple theoretical basis."
"[I]f [it's] totally stupid, and that's what they've decided, you don't go along with it just because it's decided."
"We never go to the front to see where it's going. You could go up to the engine room and find that it's an orangutan driving. And you're going to follow that? I think we owe our fellow citizens more than that."
Stare decisis should not compel adherence to precedent that lacks substantive justification. Reliance on accumulated precedent is compared to adding cars to the back of a long train without inspecting the engine, creating risk that an unfit decision at the front will continue to drive the whole line. Judicial compliance with precedent requires more than a simple theoretical basis; clearly flawed or ‘‘totally stupid’’ rulings should not be followed merely because they are established. A commitment to meaningful scrutiny prevents perpetuation of error through inertia and ensures citizens receive a more accountable judiciary.
Read at Above the Law
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]