Author Question: Define the doctrine of stare decisis and how it works. How does it relate to judicial precedent? ... (Read 49 times)

magmichele12 · **on:** Aug 16, 2018

Define the doctrine of stare decisis and how it works. How does it relate to judicial precedent?

What will be an ideal response?

Question 2

Define the concept of judicial review and give an example. Do you agree or disagree that the courts should have the final say on what the Constitution means?

What will be an ideal response?

yotaSR5 · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 16, 2018

Answer to Question 1

Stare decisis means to abide by or adhere to, decided cases. The judicial practice of
stare decisis leads to judicial precedent, meaning that decisions of courts have value
as precedent for future cases similarly circumstanced. These terms are often used
interchangeably because they vary only slightly in meaning. The principle of stare
decisis ensures predictability of court decisions, whereas judicial precedent is a
process courts follow as a result of stare decisis. Judicial precedent is made possible
by stare decisis.

Answer to Question 2

Judicial review is the power of courts to declare law or acts unconstitutional.
Marbury v. Madison was the first example, where the U.S. Supreme Court found
an act of Congress unconstitutional. I agree that the courts should have the final say
on what the Constitution means because the courts are often less influenced by the
heat of the moment partisanship.