If your last name starts with the letters L – Z, choose an opponent’s post, and draft arguments in opposition to your opponent’s arguments.
Stare decisis comes from the Latin meaning that essentially means to “stand by things decided”. In very general terms, the courts should always consider precedent when ruling on cases. Precedent should generally be followed and in most times will dictate the result. The reasons for maintaining precedent and cautiously changing it, as stated by Sonya Sotomayer in the video, include:
· Cost of precedent change?
· Does society rely on this precedent?
· Does it provide enough guidance?
· Have the facts changed?
In Roe vs. Wade, the idea of stare decisis was used in that the decision about abortion rights was determined based on precedent of the court so therefore it was settled law. The same holds true for the case of Casey v. Planned Parenthood that reaffirmed Roe. The notion of maintaining precedent holds true. Roe v. Wade has been upheld 38 times so I would have to believe this certainly sets a precedent.
The idea that women’s rights and specifically their rights to reproduction is covered by the basic concepts of the Constitution of the United States in the right to privacy. That very important precedent should not be changed. I don’t believe that any of the reasons to change precedent as pointed out above to change precedent have occurred. The facts have not changed and it certainly should provide enough guidance for society.
Word count: 235
Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/us/politics/15abortion.html
Retrieved from: https://keiseruniversity.blackboard.com/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_127990_1&content_id=_7094044_1