Stare Indecisis

This book analyzes the theoretical nuances and practical implications of how judges use precedent.

"[This book offers] an introduction and analysis of research regarding decision making by judges serving on federal and state courts in the U.S...[This handbook] describes and explains how the courts' political and social context, formal institutional structures, and informal norms affect judicial decision making. The Handbook also explores the impact of judges' personal attributes and preferences, as well as prevailing legal doctrine, influence, and shape case outcomes in state and federal courts. The volume also proposes avenues for future research in the various topics addressed throughout the book."--

This volume presents a variety of both normative and descriptive perspectives on the use of precedent by the United States Supreme Court. It brings together a diverse group of American legal scholars, some of whom have been influenced by the Segal/Spaeth "attitudinal" model and some of whom have not. The group of contributors includes legal theorists and empiricists, constitutional lawyers and legal generalists, leading authorities and up-and-coming scholars. The book addresses questions such as how the Court establishes durable precedent, how the Court decides to overrule precedent, the effects of precedent on case selection, the scope of constitutional precedent, the influence of concurrences and dissents, and the normative foundations of constitutional precedent. Most of these questions have been addressed by the Court itself only obliquely, if at all. The volume will be valuable to readers both in the United States and abroad, particularly in light of ongoing debates over the role of precedent in civil-law nations and emerging legal systems.

Grassroots advocates, public interest attorneys, and legal scholars gathered in October 2011 at the University of Baltimore for the debut symposium of "The Matthew Fogg Symposia On The Vitality of Stare Decisis In America." Convening such a broad and in many ways diverse audience, requires the program series to be worthwhile academically, yet have populist appeal. Towards that end, the event website explains: "It is both scholarly and practical to examine the current vitality of stare decisis as a legal doctrine in America." That we use Latin to describe the concept suggests it is complex, mysterious, and beyond the cares of most Americans. Yet stare decisis, sometimes called the "doctrine of precedent," arguably preserves what is among their most valued treasures, the legitimacy of America's judiciary. Presumably our administration of justice remains stable, predictable, efficient, and welfare-enhancing by requiring courts to follow earlier resolutions of cases with comparable facts, circumstances, and/or law known as precedent. The Fogg symposia combine panels of public interest attorneys and law professors to consider whether compliance with stare decisis is reasonably assured in America given certain prescribed factors. In gathering, we not only witness their analyses in the context of stare decisis, but observe how the overall exchange impacts the analysis of each participant. This book is a report on the effort, touted as the most inclusive, important examination of American courts.

Marc Jacob analyses in depth the most important justificatory and decision-making tool of one of the world's most powerful courts.