LogFAQs > #964932282

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The idea that the decision of interpretation of a supreme court at a completely arbitrary point in time is settled law isn't a great precedent to have as a whole.

Odd, then, that that's how legal systems - including the US - have operated for centuries now.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

The opinions of the supreme court are not concrete, and neither are the people occupying the positions

Thing is, laws - at least in theory - aren't supposed to be a matter of opinion; they are documents that are meant to be factual. Something either is a crime or it isn't; something either is permissible under the law or it isn't. And once the highest authority in the land has ruled on that - and for legal matters, that's supposed to be the Supreme Court - then the matter is supposed to be settled, as any questions as to the law's application and authority have now been answered.

Saying that laws are "whatever the current Supreme Court says they are at this given moment in time" throws the entire idea of a concrete legal doctrine into question, because each change in the makeup of the justices now suggests laws are once again open for "interpretation", which becomes a euphemism for "wholesale change without congressional oversight". We can already see the early effects of this, given how many states in the last five years or so passed anti-abortion laws that were flagrantly unconstitutional and violated previous Supreme Court rulings, because they hoped the current Supreme Court would rule differently, despite the question of the legality of such laws having already been unambiguously settled in court.

This becomes a waste of everyone's time and money. Justices have to reconsider issues that have already been debated and settled, instead of ruling on new legal questions and cases, the government has to litigate their position on the matter (as do any private parties who may be affected by the ruling), and the taxpayer is on the hook for all of it.

If you are charged with an offence and tried in court, you get one kick at the cat (barring substantiated allegations of impropriety that would cause the verdict to be set aside). Once you're declared guilty or not guilty, that's it, case is over and settled. You can appeal the ruling and argue that parts of the trial were conducted improperly, but you cannot have the case heard again in a different court. The government can't try you again a year later in the hopes of getting a different judge that might be more sympathetic to their cause.

This is no different. Once a ruling is made, that ruling is law, and should only be overturned if a substantial change in public opinion and the legal landscape calls the original ruling into question.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Generally stare decisis is only meaningful to lower courts anyway

This is factually incorrect, as virtually all of the Supreme Court justices - regardless of ideology - have publicly attested to.