Comments on: Stare Decisis http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/ Protect yourself from government gaffes, bureaucratic blunders and incumbent incompetence Mon, 06 Feb 2012 16:25:45 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Exceptions to the First Amendment - Homeland Stupidity http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4337 Exceptions to the First Amendment - Homeland Stupidity Thu, 24 May 2007 10:45:53 +0000 http://www.ioerror.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4337 [...] U.S. provides that the law is whatever judges decide it is. These decisions then pile up and become case law, which you’re expected to know in addition to the millions of pages of actual written laws on [...] [...] U.S. provides that the law is whatever judges decide it is. These decisions then pile up and become case law, which you’re expected to know in addition to the millions of pages of actual written laws on [...]

]]> By: Denise Edmunds http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4336 Denise Edmunds Wed, 06 Sep 2006 02:13:04 +0000 http://www.ioerror.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4336 Loved the article, shared with my paralegal class! Loved the article, shared with my paralegal class!

]]> By: Michael Hampton http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4335 Michael Hampton Tue, 24 Jan 2006 05:24:46 +0000 http://www.ioerror.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4335 Never fear, I've fixed it. :) Never fear, I’ve fixed it. :)

]]> By: (8?» http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4334 (8?» Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:31:21 +0000 http://www.ioerror.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4334 DOH!!! Sorry about forgetting that closing tag on the link, which should've stated "Wickard v. Filburn." DOH!!!

Sorry about forgetting that closing tag on the link, which should’ve stated “Wickard v. Filburn.”

]]> By: (8?» http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4333 (8?» Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:28:57 +0000 http://www.ioerror.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4333 An even older precedent is the decision <a href="http://www.oyez.org/" title=" Wickard v. Filburn"><cite>Wickard v. Filburn</cite></a>, where Mr. Filburn dared believe he had the right to grow wheat for his own usage, above and beyond what Master Roosevelt said he could. How humanity ever managed to get out of the Dark Ages without such wise leaders remains a mystery to this day... An even older precedent is the decision Wickard v. Filburn, where Mr. Filburn dared believe he had the right to grow wheat for his own usage, above and beyond what Master Roosevelt said he could.

How humanity ever managed to get out of the Dark Ages without such wise leaders remains a mystery to this day…

]]> By: Strider http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4332 Strider Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:54:27 +0000 http://www.ioerror.us/2006/01/14/stare-decisis/#comment-4332 His repeated use of the phrase might in part be a small attempt to calm the accusations among the far left that if confirmed he will immediately try to overturn Roe V. Wade. Your description is correct, though. Sometimes the courts make terrible decisions. To really clean up _Kelo_ might require legislation -- say a new law that "clarifies" the meaning of the term "public use". The case you cite regarding marajuana reminds me of a man charged under federal law after having made his own machine gun. (Fully automatic weapons have of course been heavily regulated since the 1930s.) His argument, much like the case you cite) was that he made it himself, didn't cross state lines, and had no intent on selling it -- thus no "Interstate Commerce". IIRC, the courts sided with the law against the man. His repeated use of the phrase might in part be a small attempt to calm the accusations among the far left that if confirmed he will immediately try to overturn Roe V. Wade.

Your description is correct, though. Sometimes the courts make terrible decisions. To really clean up _Kelo_ might require legislation — say a new law that “clarifies” the meaning of the term “public use”.

The case you cite regarding marajuana reminds me of a man charged under federal law after having made his own machine gun. (Fully automatic weapons have of course been heavily regulated since the 1930s.) His argument, much like the case you cite) was that he made it himself, didn’t cross state lines, and had no intent on selling it — thus no “Interstate Commerce”. IIRC, the courts sided with the law against the man.

]]>