The Stare Decisis

This ease of administration, if you will, aids discriminatory efficiency and allows courts, to slightly extent, to dispose of cases more quickly than if they had to see each case as though a convertible issue had never come before them.

Essentially, the doctrine of behold decisis binds a court to rulings that are consistent with its rulings in forward cases that are similar in fact pattern and universal policy. There are two ways look decisis works, however. A lower court within the efficacious power of a spiffing court is legitimately bound by the rulings of the superior court. For example, no trial court in the United States today muckle rule that stillbirth is not a constitutionally protect right. This is because the United States ruled in hard roe that the decision to bewilder an abortion was a privacy right that was protected by the U.S. Constitution. In such cases, look decisis is a legal dominance that lower courts cannot subvert or ignore. Notably, this is not the case to which near courts would apply the term stare decisis. That terms is more lots used when the precedent is non-binding, as discussed below.

There is a non-binding ferment of stare decisis as well. In such cases, courts of equal jurisdiction - for example, the federal circuit appellate courts or courts of last apply in two different states - are not legally bound by stare decisis across their jurisdic

It is this seeming inconsistency in the Supreme Court's act of stare decisis that has led many legal scholars to question the doctrine's validity. For example, matchless scholar, Michael Paulsen, has read the plurality opinion in Casey to reflect Justices O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter's " disinclination" to embrace as correct the Court's foregoing ruling in Roe. Specifically, Paulsen argues that "[t]he [Casey] opinion expressed the apparent doubts of at least whatever of the Justices constituting the majority about the correctness of Roe as an pilot matter and the morality of a constitutional right to abortion as a general proposition.

" Thus Paulsen contends that the policy of stare decisis, rather than a belief in the correctness of the marrow squash of Casey led the Court to rule as it did in that case. He notes also, however, that in deciding Casey as it did, the Court simultaneously overruled (in part) its prior decisions in two other cases.

Paulsen, Michael. "Abrogating Stare Decisis by statute(predicate): May Congress Remove the Precedential Effect of Roe and Casey?" Yale Law Journal, 109, 7 (May 2000): 1535-1603.

In conclusion, it is likely that the doctrine of stare decisis is too ingrained into legal practice to ever be completely uprooted. Moreover, one factor that Paulsen overlooks in his examination of the upshot of stare decisis on judicial efficiency is the almost matter of course in the increase in cases filed if courts were barred from deciding cases base on their prior decisions. In such a legal world, every case could be decided differently and in complete opposition to other cases that seemed significantly similar on both the facts and the issues. Whatever its problems, the doctrine of stare decisis does bring some measure of stability to legal decisions that has made Western judicial systems more manageable than they would likely be without it.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.