STARE DECISIS

  Nope, not a misspelling or a typo. It is a Latin term used to delineate the normal path of judicial decisions. How or why are they reached and how ignoring it means some problems, from minor to earth shaking and society rattling. It is defined as a doctrine to "stand by things decided". In other words, be very careful of a decision which overturns the societal norms, particularly if it involves destruction of, or a major change to the rights of the involved parties in the dispute. As well as the decisions of predecessor judges.

Change is allowed, as in Topeka vs. Board of Education in which the accepted doctrine of the South was separate but equal. It was turned away, declared unconstitutional, and change had to take place. This is an example of a good time to ignore the stare decisis doctrine. On the other hand, the predecessors of the current Justices of the Supreme Court are now on the cusp of ignoring the predecessors' decisions in Roe v Wade denying its validity, and destroying, ignoring the right of women to control their own body and health decisions. This is slavery, no more and no less, particularly as there is no valid legal argument here that to allow the right to choose adversely affects society at large. 

However, we are facing a Court that is so manifestly, obviously, a politically activist bench, that decisions are skewed one way in the main. Occasionally, there are times when they come to their senses, as with the release of the papers dealing with Jan. 6, as in decisions of lower courts allowing the release of papers which indicate the alleged wrongdoings of Trump et al. Finally!

Yet even as a correct decision was made in this case, it was not unanimous, as Clarence Thomas, accused of sexual misbehavior, dissented. Just as the ties of his wife to extremists, now called far right, are revealed. Tied to a man accused of sedition, a coup, a rebellion, an insurrection - choose the term. How is this man allowed to vote on issues, with this apparent connection and blatant possible bias? Why does he not recuse himself? Why? Because these Justices have taken on a role of political, robe wearing activists, a most definite wrong turn - for them, for us, for the country, for our entire legal system. Imagine overturning all the Amendments regarding rights, negating all the progress achieved over the lifetime of this country. Imagine, just imagine the negative effects.

Not so hard to do these days. The cracks of the veneer of some are showing through, enlarging in length and depth. Lauren Boebert openly makes a statement rife with anti-Semitism, accusing a delegation of casing the area, doing a reconnaissance, planning an attack. This at a time when a synagogue was invaded by a terrorist, where the hostages rescued themselves, escaped with and by their own courageous actions, and then denied at first the dignity of having it called as it was, and is, and seemingly will always be - at least for Jews - even in America. Colossal nerve!! 

Even as McConnell allows his inner truths to emerge by a major slip of the tongue. Trying to justify the GOP and its refusal to protect voting rights of all, as state and local GOP members have declared war on those rights, he says,  “African American voters are voting in just as high a percentage as Americans."       Uh huh! Not Americans, are they? The voting restrictions are not aimed at Black voters? And this will stop with them? We all know it does not. When one segment, any segment, of society is denied rights, the next segment will follow. I refer you to the words of Pastor Nieumuller about that. No words can erase the truth forever.

Stare Decisis - a doctrine greatly to be valued and used appropriately. We certainly are not enforcing nor following that doctrine and never will, as long as the political activism is barely hidden under robes and allowed to continue. Time for action. Time for correction. Time. For. Truth.