From The Supreme Court’s Overruling of Constitutional Precedent (R45319 Sept. 24, 2018): “How the Court uses precedent to decide controversial issues has prompted debate over whether the Court should follow rules identified in prior decisions or overrule them. The Court’s treatment of precedent implicates longstanding questions about how the Court can maintain stability in the law by adhering to precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis while correcting decisions that rest on faulty reasoning, unworkable standards, abandoned legal doctrines, or outdated factual assumptions.”
- Goodbye World
- House Judiciary Committee’s Articles of Impeachment
- Implied Constitutional Powers in the Founding Era
- Witness written statements in first Judiciary Committee impeachment hearing
- The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report
- Negotiating the American Constitution (1787-1789) Coalitions, Process Rules, and Compromises
- Measuring Law Faculty Scholarly Impact by Citations: Reliable and Valid for Collective Faculty Ranking
- Is There a Case for Statistical Precedent?
- When Courts Should Ignore Statutory Text
- Beck’s The Parts We Skip: A Taxonomy of Constitutional Irrelevancy
Just in case you don't get it: The views expressed are solely those of the blog post author and should not be attributed to anyone else, meaning they do not necessarily represent the views of any organization that the post author is affiliated with or with the views of any other author who publishes on this blog.
- 243,169 hits