Someone once said that the easiest way to change your perception is by changing your position… This court has done just that in the last few years and until they change their “position” again we should expect to see a lot of these “5 to 4″ rulings in favor of conservative thought. No need to act surprised, it's a new court.

Someone once said that the easiest way to change your perception is by changing your position… This court has done just that in the last few years and until they change their “position” again we should expect to see a lot of these “5 to 4″ rulings in favor of conservative thought. No need to act surprised, it's a new court.

Yes,reversals of precedent have occured and sometimes they made a change possible when political bodies couldn't manage it.
The operative word is 'somehimes'. and then it's a judgment call, as to whether or not it was justified.

The same argument goes on endlessly about states' rights vs Fed imperative.
Desegragation took the National Guard to implement.

The importance of precedent, however, is – on the whole- to prevent sudden lurches. IMO, social stability iis of primary importance. So, I would expect and honor a court's trimming or adjusting previous rulings, but a series of u-turn reversals sets the stage for retributions in future appointments.

I would think conservatives would see the wisdom of that, since it is part of thieir basic philosophy to undertake changes gradually and cautiously.

There are no absolutes in this argument.: no NEVER and no ALWAYS.
To prevent further politization, however, I think u-turn decisions should come seldom and only when gradual steps have been exhausted.and proved to be unworkable.

Yes,reversals of precedent have occured and sometimes they made a change possible when political bodies couldn't manage it.
The operative word is 'somehimes'. and then it's a judgment call, as to whether or not it was justified.

The same argument goes on endlessly about states' rights vs Fed imperative.
Desegragation took the National Guard to implement.

The importance of precedent, however, is – on the whole- to prevent sudden lurches. IMO, social stability iis of primary importance. So, I would expect and honor a court's trimming or adjusting previous rulings, but a series of u-turn reversals sets the stage for retributions in future appointments.

I would think conservatives would see the wisdom of that, since it is part of thieir basic philosophy to undertake changes gradually and cautiously.

There are no absolutes in this argument.: no NEVER and no ALWAYS.
To prevent further politization, however, I think u-turn decisions should come seldom and only when gradual steps have been exhausted.and proved to be unworkable.

In general, I see runasim's point about precedent. However, some of the most important cases in SCOTUS history have been ones where they reversed precedent. Overulling earlier decisions such as Dred Scott, etc.

In general, I see runasim's point about precedent. However, some of the most important cases in SCOTUS history have been ones where they reversed precedent. Overulling earlier decisions such as Dred Scott, etc.

…it's about Hillary Clinton being a wise choice for the job position at hand. THE WISEST choice between the two democratic figurheads running for office.

She's not running for office anymore.

And what's this about her having experience in a crisis? What crisis would that be?

A willingness to make u-turn decisions by one court creates the politization of the nomination-to-confirmation process for subsequent judges.
Roberts and Alito both attested respect for precedent, but then showed an eagerness to completely disregard it. Thus, they have ensured that the next addition to the SC will arrive amid great political furor. .

I wonder if a career in law practice itself does not elicit a crusader mindset, since a lawyer's job is to press one side and to walk all over the other side of the argument.
Maybe we need to look at different career pools to fill openings in the SC.
Academics? Public office?

If she ordered me to vote for Obama this Fall, I would not, for the common sense reasons I stated above. If she got on her knees and begged me to vote for Obama, I would not, for the above reasons.

It's not about Hillary Clinton, it's about Hillary Clinton being a wise choice for the job position at hand. THE WISEST choice between the two democratic figurheads running for office.

And Shoter, don't trolls get banned? OK, I see why you need me to be a troll instead of a reasonable poster. Censurship. Obama supporters are adamantly into gagging people in support of the Clinton figurehead as candidate. And this is another example.