• Setup menu at Appearance » Menus and assign menu to Top Bar Navigation
Thursday, February 25, 2021
No Result
View All Result
The Hub Press
  • Top News
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Travel
  • Health
  • News TV
  • Lifestyle
  • Science
  • Entertainment
  • Top News
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Travel
  • Health
  • News TV
  • Lifestyle
  • Science
  • Entertainment
No Result
View All Result
The Hub Press
No Result
View All Result
Home Top News

Amy Coney Barrett Is No Extremist on Stare Decisis – Reason.com

by Thehub Press
October 12, 2020
in Top News
0
0
SHARES
4
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter


At the New York Times, I have a new piece about Professor Amy Coney Barrett’s writings on precedent and stare decisis. This was a significant component of her research agenda as a scholar, and it has come under new scrutiny now that she might be able to put some of her ideas into practice as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Although critics have decried her as an extremist on stare decisis, I am more impressed by the extent to which her scholarship was designed to push originalists toward a more moderate and more mainstream position on the question of the authority of erroneous precedents. She may not preserve your favorite precedents as a justice, but that does not mean that she is a radical in regards to stare decisis. For better or for worse, she is no Clarence Thomas on the virtues of casting misguided precedents aside.

From the piece:

Justice Scalia was sometimes criticized as unprincipled in his approach to stare decisis, but Judge Barrett has argued that a principled defense can be built for Justice Scalia’s position, and in doing so she has argued that a committed originalist can reasonably adopt a mainstream approach to stare decisis on constitutional issues.

Even an originalist judge, she believes, should frequently defer to what might be flawed precedents. That is true for what are sometimes called “superprecedents” like the unconstitutionality of racial segregation and the constitutionality of paper money, but it is also true for many more ordinary precedents that might have been badly reasoned but that are now broadly accepted.

You can read the whole thing here.



CNN

Thehub Press

Thehub Press

Next Post

Coronavirus in Congress Won’t Stop Barrett Confirmation Hearings, Which Start Today – Reason.com

Recommended

No Content Available




  • Top News
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Travel
  • Health
  • News TV
  • Lifestyle
  • Science
  • Entertainment

© 2019 Thehub.Press

No Result
View All Result
  • Top News
  • World
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Sports
  • Travel
  • Health
  • News TV
  • Lifestyle
  • Science
  • Entertainment

© 2019 Thehub.Press