If stare decisis were treated as an inexorable command in the American criminal justice system, it would lead to a rigid adherence to precedent, potentially stifling legal evolution and adaptability. Courts would be less inclined to consider the unique circumstances of individual cases or evolving societal values, risking unjust outcomes. This could undermine the flexibility necessary for the law to address new challenges and injustices effectively, ultimately eroding public trust in the judicial system. Such a mechanical application of precedent might also diminish the role of judicial interpretation, reducing the judiciary's ability to serve as a check on legislative and executive power.
There could be numerous examples that would qualify but one that most people can relate to is Brown vs. Board of Education. Stare Decisis basically means that a ruling is made based upon precedence.
Literally, stare decisis translates from the latin to mean "To stand by that which has been decided" or "To stand by decided matters". Stare decisis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decision.
No. The states are required to follow their ownstate statutes and constitutions, which are unique to each state.The doctrine of stare decisis would strongly encourage both Georgia and Florida to follow US Supreme Court decisions on questions of federal and constitutional law, with the exception of cases involving unincorporated constitutional Amendments. Unincorporated Amendments and clauses are those portions of the Bill of Rights that have not (yet) been held to apply to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, such as the Second Amendment (right to bear arms). Issues involving unincorporated Amendments are regulated by the states.
"Stare decisis" is the legal principle that courts should make decisions the follow decisions made in previous cases that involve similar sets of facts and issues of law. The advantages are that there is a stability in law so that people know what is allowable and what is not. This helps them know what and what not to do in taking future actions. It also tends to promote a uniformity of law throughout the country. Different states are free to disagree among themselves as to what laws govern in their states, but since most court made law comes from common law England, many legal principles have the same roots. Courts of different states do try to make rulings in line with other states even though they do not have to. A disadvantage is that as life progresses and evolves, the law should too. What was acceptable a hundred years ago might not be in a modern society. The best example is in 1896 the US Supreme Court ruled that segregated public facilities was constitutional as long as they were equal. In 1956, the Supreme Court ruled that separate but equal facilities were inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional. In 1956, if the Supreme Court had blindly followed the principle of stare decisis, it would have ruled that segregation was permissible.
It will stare at you, or ignore you, or eat your cat.
Their face
glare
Stare at the water i would imagine.
#(8======>)
he is thinking 'i would tear that up'
If he is mad at her yes.