|Abstract||Recent critics of the Roberts Court chide it for its lack of regard for precedent. Fred Schauer faults these critics for erroneously assuming that a rule of stare decisis formerly played a significant role in the Supreme Court's decision-making. In fact, it has long played only a rare and weak role in the Court's work. Nonetheless, according to Schauer, the critics are to be thanked for invigorating a needed debate about the importance of "stability, consistency, settlement, reliance, notice, and predictability" in the Court's decisions. This article argues that Schauer exaggerates the weakness of stare decisis in the Court's practices; and that his call for a public debate on the merits of the norm of stare decisis can only weaken it.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Only published papers are available at libraries|
Similar books and articles
David C. Thompson & Melanie Wachtell, An Empirical Analysis of Supreme Court Certiorari Petition Procedures: The Call for Response and the Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.
Kristin Lefebvre (2007). An Ethical Evaluation of the Supreme Court Decision Regarding ERISA Interpretation. Journal of Philosophical Research 32 (Supplement):327-334.
Charles T. Kotuby Jr, Private International Law Before the United States Supreme Court: Recent Terms in Review.
Simon Butt, The Constitutional Court's Decision in the Dispute Between the Supreme Court and the Judicial Commission: Banishing Judicial Accountability?
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #188,845 of 722,826 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?