Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How are you going to overturn a bad decision if you don't re-examine the points made in the first decision? Basically, you're trying to make the case that no decision can ever be overturned. That sounds like a Pope's edict, not a court decision.Not what Stare Decisis means.
It means you don't relitigate the same arguments. Else every criminal would have nonstop do overs for the rest of his life. We would be eliminating every civil and criminal case until the end of time.
Nope, I clearly have been talking about checking PC boxes this whole time, so you're now dodging.Whiny, irrelevant.
And a pretty sad dodge on your part.
You kind of stepped in it, earlier.
You have to come with ALL brand new arguments that are better than the old arguments.How are you going to overturn a bad decision if you don't re-examine the points made in the first decision?
And were you present when the Justices overturned Roe? No, you were not, so you have no idea whether they reviewed previous bad decisions using new arguments, old arguments, or both. Stare Decisis is not a law that ties the hands of Justices, who need to be free to hear each case on its own merits, not be required to check with a democrat before ruling.You have to come with ALL brand new arguments that are better than the old arguments.
That's Stare Decisis.
Decisions are not overturned by relitigating old arguments. They are overturned when new information, argument, or evidence comes to light, or when egregious errors are made by the prosecution of the courts or the juries.
The arguments at issue are made by the lawyers, not the judges. They are then addressed.in the written decisions.And were you present when the Justices overturned Roe
Ok. What’s your point, corn cob?Yes, they are expected to have some experience and knowledge.
The repeal of Roe vs Wade put the issue in the hands of the people of each state. That’s where the issue belongs. The federal government has no business being involved in that issueAnd were you present when the Justices overturned Roe? No, you were not, so you have no idea whether they reviewed previous bad decisions using new arguments, old arguments, or both. Stare Decisis is not a law that ties the hands of Justices, who need to be free to hear each case on its own merits, not be required to check with a democrat before ruling.
The arguments are made by the lawyers, but then the Justices deliberate together. They don't form their decisions in a vacuum. That's what you didn't hear.The arguments at issue are made by the lawyers, not the judges. They are then addressed.in the written decisions.
True enough. Back to the topic at hand.The repeal of Roe vs Wade put the issue in the hands of the people of each state. That’s where the issue belongs. The federal government has no business being involved in that issue
None of that has anything to do with the subject of this thread
Again, guy, your lack of compassion is interesting, given that you come off as a crazy person most of the time.
We need to stop treating addiction as a crime and start treating it as a medical problem.
I stated it 4 times. You didn't get it the first 3 times, but I was sure you got it the 4th time.Ok. What’s your point, corn cob?
If they allow or deliberate on argument that have already been made in the past case, they have violated stare decisis.The arguments are made by the lawyers, but then the Justices deliberate together
Hunter is a genius according to Progs. The only other view is he is a deep state agent and is in character.
You often post stupid comments.I stated it 4 times. You didn't get it the first 3 times, but I was sure you got it the 4th time.
Maybe start paying attention instead of whining all the time.
Please stop crybabying.You often post stupid comments.
More stupid shit from you.Please stop crybabying.
Which is, of course, nothing more than desiring that the Senate control the Court.Idiots think that a nominee to the Supreme Court should study and know the details about every case the court has ever heard. Plus they need to give their opinion on how they would rule on a hypothetically case before they hear any of the arguments.
Those same idiots also think one has to be a biologist to determine the definition of a woman.
The senate is required to confirm court nominees. No Supreme Court justice will be seated without the approval of the senateWhich is, of course, nothing more than desiring that the Senate control the Court.
And the candidate should NOT be questioned as to how they would rule on a case that hasn't even been brought before them as part of the confirmation process.The senate is required to confirm court nominees. No Supreme Court justice will be seated without the approval of the senate
Yes.And the candidate should NOT be questioned as to how they would rule on a case that hasn't even been brought before them as part of the confirmation process.
www.heritage.org
