you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 67 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Wasn't this already decided when they ruled that stop-and-frisk laws were unconstitutional due to racial profiling?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Why respect precedent when you can just make a new one and get bribed for it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

    It's called a "gratuity" now instead of a bribe. I guess the SCOTUS was feeling left out watching the other two branches make money hand over fist and decided to legalize it.

    Edit: apparently the difference is getting paid after, instead of before, whatever "service" is provided.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Stare Decisis is for suckers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Blindly following precedent without reason, maybe...but applying the law without any form of consistency isn't helpful either. Rulings need to be fair, across the board. They can't wildly swing from one precedent to another, depending on the individual whims of whichever judge is currently deciding a case.

    That's exactly what's happening now, with the current Supreme Court...and look at how that's going.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    They can't wildly swing from one precedent to another, depending on the individual whims of whichever judge is currently deciding a case.

    They can and they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago

    That's why I responded the way I did to the guy that said, "Stare Decisis is for suckers".

    The current Supreme Court is not adhering to precedent. Without that adherence, no decision is final. Every established law can simply be reinterpreted again and again, without any consistency.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I wasn’t suggesting it, that phrase is an older conservative trope from legal blog from 20 years ago that is clearly motivating the current Supreme Court. (The current strict scrutiny podcast references it too in a clearly sarcastic tone as well)

  • source
  • parent