Stare
decisis means let the decision stand.
Not exact matches
Scalia once famously remarked that he was a «faint - hearted originalist,»
meaning in part that he would sometimes forsake originalism in order to obey the command of stare
decisis, that is, he would follow established precedent.
«Moreover, decisions that rest on an unstable foundation tend to undermine the very values of certainty and predictability that stare
decisis is
meant to foster.»
The doctrine of stare
decisis is the overarching principle of how case law molds the law in response to changing conditions, and scholarship related to this doctrine will often implicate how the law changes in emphasis or
meaning over time in response to changing conditions.
I know in general that stare
decisis effectively
means that once a court rules on a law that other courts can use that decision when considering their cases.
But what it
means in practice is that the only reason today that Article III judges must defer to the D.C. Court of Appeals on questions of D.C. law is because the D.C. Circuit itself has said so — and so stare
decisis, and not the Rules of Decision Act or principles of federalism — carries all the weight (and would not bind federal courts outside of the D.C. Circuit in diversity cases in which choice - of - law rules compel application of D.C. substantive law).
But to Justice Scalia, this
means that (except for race discrimination, which he views as different for stare
decisis reasons), he would limit Congress's Section 5 power to conduct that itself violates the Fourteenth Amendment.