And Madison had written that constitutional interpretation must be left to the reasoned judgment of independent judges, rather than to the tumult and conflict of the political process. If every constitutional question were to be decided by public political bargaining, Madison argued, the Constitution would be reduced to a battleground of competing factions, political passion and partisan spirit.
In this decision, the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court's responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution.
That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. In retrospect, it is evident that constitutional interpretation and application were made necessary by the very nature of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers had wisely worded that document in rather general terms leaving it open to future elaboration to meet changing conditions. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind.
Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves.
The Constitution limits the Court to dealing with "Cases" and "Controversies. The Court does not give advisory opinions; rather, its function is limited only to deciding specific cases. The Justices must exercise considerable discretion in deciding which cases to hear, since approximately 7,, civil and criminal cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year from the various state and federal courts.
Department of Revenue of Illinois , [49] a precedent prohibiting a state from imposing a sales tax collection duty on a mail-order reseller if the seller lacks a physical presence within the state. Legitimacy concerns form a fourth relevant consideration in a stare decisis analysis.
The Court has stated that legitimacy concerns are especially pressing when the Court analyzes the precedential power of a landmark case on a publicly divisive issue. Principles for overturning precedent have evolved significantly from the time of the early judiciary. Statistical studies reveal that the Court has grown increasingly comfortable with overturning its own precedents. John M. Walker, Jr. The assistance of Ariela C.
Anhalt in the preparation of this commentary is gratefully acknowledged by the author. This Commentary is also available in Chinese at the above hyperlink. The information and views set out in this Commentary are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the work or views of the China Guiding Cases Project. United States , U. Tennessee , U. Pennsylvania v.
Casey , U. Simmons , U. Department of Revenue of Ill. Peterson ed. Play Icon Play icon in a circular border. Table of Contents 1 Commentary 1. Commentary Introduction American courts follow the doctrine of stare decisis and defer to earlier cases on similar issues.
Reliance Courts also consider reliance interests in deciding whether to overturn a precedent. Legitimacy Legitimacy concerns form a fourth relevant consideration in a stare decisis analysis. Hallock , U. Bakke , U. David Schultz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions — precedent — to resolve current disputes. In its upcoming term, the U. Supreme Court faces the question of whether to overrule itself on abortion rights.
Wade , which allowed women to have abortions in most circumstances. Over the centuries, courts have stated many reasons they should adhere to precedent. If a court in the past reviewed a particular set of facts and decided a case in a specific way, fairness dictates it should decide another similar case the same way.
Precedent promotes uniformity and consistency in the law. In addition, precedent promotes judicial efficiency: Courts do not have to decide from scratch every time.
Finally, following precedent promotes predictability in the law and protects people who have come to rely on past decisions as a guide for their behavior. But not all precedents are equal, and several current Supreme Court justices have signaled that they might be open to overturning even long-standing rulings that interpret the Constitution.
The court has reversed its own constitutional precedents only times — barely one-half of one percent. It was not until the s under Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that it started to overturn precedents with any frequency. These were cases such as United States v. Before then, of course, many cases asked the court to interpret clauses of the Constitution for the first time, so there were often no precedents to confront or overturn.
For most of its history the court changed its mind only when it thought past precedent was unworkable or no longer viable, perhaps eroded by its subsequent opinions or by changing social conditions.
0コメント