Most Americans call it controlling precedent, they can't really think or write in Latin.
For insiders who have actually practiced law, the very concept of stare decisis is a pathetic joke in our so called system of jurisprudence.
It is hardly a "system of justice", but more a grotesque Bizarro patchwork of injustices.
Not the least reason for this ridiculous situation is the longstanding dual, or even, say, multiple and highly fragmented jurisdictional framework (lack of framework), as between federal, state, and local judicial jurisdictions.
I saw nothing wrong with Dred Scott, as a piece of legal reasoning and exposition, and especially the principle of stare decisis, even though it contains the drawbacks of multi jurisdictional exegesis and precedent. I still don't. Philip Bobbitt has more or less agreed with my position in writing (Dred Scott not far wrong...). That is good enough company for me, regardless of what people like Jost think or write. The fact that Thomas has now done an about face doesn't change the fact that until recently, he would, or at least should, have agreed with me too about Dred Scott and stare decisis.
No comments:
Post a Comment