U.S. Justice Alito says pandemic has led to 'unimaginable' curbs on liberty
(www.reuters.com)
😷 LOCKDOWN BS 😷
Comments (170)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Kavavaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all agreed to hear the case. It was Roberts and the other three liberal justices that declined it. Without a majority of justices, the Supreme Court could not accept the case. So it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/supreme-court-declines-to-block-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-extension-430244
There were two instances of the "same" case and two different votes (4-4 and 3-5), please read my answer above.
Sauce: https://archive.is/eH4Qk
Oh, ok. I can't find anything about that second hearing. That's news to me. What was that one about?
I added source in my original comments: https://archive.is/eH4Qk
Oh, you must have edited your comment. I see it now. Thanks.
But good judges follow precedents set by the court even if they personally disagree with it.
Yeah, tell that to four left-leaning justices on the court (Breyer, Keegan, Sotomayor, Roberts).
What do we do about past precedents that were set that we know to be wrong?
Complicated business. You have to respect the court's decision in order to provide a legal environment that does not change everyday. This stability of the rules of the game is the core issue to a healthy society (business, family, etc).
So in order to reexamine a decision we must have some new information that makes the new case different enough to justify the reasoning of something different. The court should never really "break a precedent", it should look at a new case with this new information and produce a new reasoning, so a new precedent for a new "type" of case.
The difference is the following: case A gets decided 5-4; the losing side appeals; the appellation should be 9-0. Case B is set forth before the court, slightly different case, with new information; this one could be 4-5 if feels different enough; the appellation should then be 0-9.
The lawyer's job for a case C then becomes trying to convince the court by analogy which precedent is "closer": case A or B.
So a "wrong past precedent" should be defeated pointing out why it doesn't apply to the current case. It should go away naturally.
You can review a case and overturn a precedent, but that is a wasp's nest.