Latin Phrase of the Day – stare decisis

Yes, that phrase might be the phrase heard more today than any other. If you have been keeping track of the confirmation hearings of Sonia Sotomayor, you have heard this numerous times.

Stare decisis (Abbreviation of the Latin: Stare decisis et non quieta movere / English: maintain what has been decided; not alter that which has been established) is the legal principle under which judges are obligated to follow the precedents established in prior decisions.

In the United States, which uses a common law system in its federal courts and most of its state courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:

Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — “to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled.” Consider the word “decisis.” The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not “to stand by or keep to what was said.” Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — “to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases.” Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the “what,” not for the “why,” and not for the “how.” Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.[1]

In other words, stare decisis applies to the holding of a case, rather than to obiter dicta. As the United States Supreme Court has put it: “dicta may be followed if sufficiently persuasive but are not binding.”[2]

The doctrine that holdings have binding precedential value is not valid within most civil law jurisdictions as it is argued that this principle interferes with the right of judges to interpret law and the right of the legislature to make law. Most such systems, however, recognize the concept of jurisprudence constante, which argues that even though judges are independent, they should rule in a predictable and non-chaotic manner. Therefore, judges’ right to interpret law does not preclude the adoption of a small number of selected binding case laws.

The above from Wikipedia, makes it very clear why it is important to ask questions of the nominee, because neither side wants a renegade justice, making changes to things without proper regard for the established way of doing things.

Is it something strange that the conservatives then, who always purport to desire to keep things as they are, and remove new interpretation of the law from the purview of the Supreme Court, are so worried about a woman who, after repeated questioning, fully supports the concept of our ‘word of the day’?

She certainly would hold with the established law of a woman’s rights over her own body (Roe v. Wade, etc.).

It does seem odd that when the shoe is on the other foot, problems with continuity seem to arise, and rather than a quick confirmation, the conservatives are determined to be intransigent, some to the limits of civility. Senator Sessions in particular, seems overtly cantankerous, and is doing his best to be disruptive, much as a petulant child, after being told he can’t have some candy.

Source: http://www.lockergnome.com/theoracle/2009/07/14/latin-phrase-of-the-day-stare-decisis/