{"id":97032,"date":"2025-02-19T08:20:53","date_gmt":"2025-02-19T08:20:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/business\/legal\/settled-law-and-the-supreme-court\/"},"modified":"2025-02-19T08:20:53","modified_gmt":"2025-02-19T08:20:53","slug":"settled-law-and-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=97032","title":{"rendered":"Settled Law and the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n

With Roe v. Wade being overturned, there is a reasonable train of thought coming from opponents of the Hobbs decision \u2014 the Supreme Court just upended a half-century of legal precedent, and all of a sudden things are different. Yes, things change. And the Court can do that. <\/p>\n

But is that a good thing? This is NOT a discussion about whether you like the outcome or not, set that aside. This is about whether it is a good thing that once five justices think settled law is no longer settled, we can swing a 350 million nation empire in any old direction. Stare decisis<\/em> is desirable, because it makes the law predictable. However, nobody wants to live in a society where decisions are simply indelible, no matter what happens. <\/p>\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n

As we have just seen, the Supreme Court can simply play Cho Chabudai Gaeshi!<\/em> with nearly anything at any time. But, maybe it shouldn\u2019t be able to simply do a u-turn any time 5 out of 9 people think it sounds like a good idea. <\/p>\n

So why not have a SCOTUS en banc<\/em>? <\/p>\n

Temporarily expand the Court any time it wants to reconsider \u201csettled law.\u201d <\/p>\n

In the Courts of Appeal, all cases are assigned to random three judge panels. If there is a prior binding decision in that Court of Appeal, then the three judge panel must follow that decision, even if they disagree with it. If you want to challenge that prior decision, you can do so if you are able to convince the Court to hear the case en banc<\/em>. For you non-lawyers, that means that all the judges in the Circuit re-hear the case. (In the 9th Circuit, since there are so many judges, you just pull a random 10 judges plus the Chief \u2013 with the theoretical \u201csuper en banc\u201d (all 29 judges) still permissible, but I think it has never happened).<\/p>\n

To have en banc<\/em> Supreme Court decisions, we could go to each Circuit court of appeal, and grab the a random judge, or the Chief Judge, of that Circuit. We have 13 numbered geographic circuits, the DC Circuit, the Federal Circuit, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. That gives us 25 Justices to deliberate any decision that would upend \u201csettled law.\u201d<\/p>\n

This would give us an avenue to fix mistakes, reverse decisions that do not stand the test of time, but without making every vacancy an existential crisis over abortion, guns, or whatever becomes the battle du jour. <\/p>\n

_______________<\/p>\n

Yes, this is a little adaptation of a small section of a recent post. But, I want to tease out this idea more. <\/p>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\tThis entry was posted on Monday, June 27th, 2022 at 9:17 am and is filed under misc<\/a>.\t\t\t\t\tYou can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0<\/a> feed.
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tBoth comments and pings are currently closed.<\/p>\n

\t\t\t\t\t<\/small>\n\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n