Stare decisis: Should it be Political?

[Yurt]

Stare decisis?

A good rule of law?

A made up rule of law?

A bogus rule that should be done away with?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070718/pl_nm/usa_politics_abortion_dc


These members of one branch of government are telling the other branch of government how they should rule. Interestingly, these two members cry foul when the executive branch does something they don't agree with, and then run to this judicial branch whom they just told what to do.

A three branch government? Is it possible?


Mods:

I don't think think this should just be in "politics" as it involves the "judicial" and "executive" branch and there is not forum for such. It is afterall, an issue we should sit around the "campfire" and talk about :)

[LiberalNation]

Yeah it can work, the judicial is checked by the executive because they appoint the big judges in the high court and they are appointed for life even when administrations change. They can't really be fired bar some major incident so the political talk candidate throw there way doesn't really have much effect. After all what can Obama and Clinton do to them.

[Yurt]

Yeah it can work, the judicial is checked by the executive because they appoint the big judges in the high court and they are appointed for life even when administrations change. They can't really be fired bar some major incident so the political talk candidate throw there way doesn't really have much effect. After all what can Obama and Clinton do to them.

So should these left wing candidates be allowed to apply so much pressure to get the judicial branch to change its ruling?

[LiberalNation]

Of course, they can speak there minds on the matter like anyone else. Judges always take heat over controversial ruling from both sides. Like I said, the pressure they apply is meaningless. They can do nothing to force the judges hands and have no power over them. If a judge would let that little bit change their decision they shouldn’t be judges. Besides the ruling can be overturned later even if they were.

[diuretic]

I'm a little confused. My understanding of stare decisis is that it's a legal doctrine (I know legal doctrines are also called "fictions" but I'll leave that alone for the moment). It's a conservative legal doctrine (the English common law being very conservative in its operation).

The other aspect of this thread seems to be about the doctrine of the separation of powers which, I think, is either dead in the US or it's in dire need of resuscitation.

On topic - Clinton and Obama have every right to criticise the Supreme Court. So do I :laugh2: Ain't nothin' gonna happen though until the legislature decides to legislate to overcome any decision of the Supreme Court right?

[LiberalNation]

The other aspect of this thread seems to be about the doctrine of the separation of powers which, I think, is either dead in the US or it's in dire need of resuscitation.

Not dead but takes a lot of time and is hard to work with a cowardly congress that doesn't have a backbone or a large majority to get things done with.