3 ms·
This certainly does happen for court decisions [1], but part of the legitimacy of the court comes from the idea that it is consistently (and therefore fairly) i
by daxelrod 12y ago
This certainly does happen for court decisions [1], but part of the legitimacy of the court comes from the idea that it is consistently (and therefore fairly) interpereting law.
It's also important to make a distinction between "the implications of the court's interpretation of the law are different in this new world" and "the implications of this law are different in this new world. For the latter, the legislature, not the court, should fix the law. For the former, it is still within the legeslature's power to fix the law in such a way that the previous court decision is invalidated.
[1] http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1992-13.htm http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-1992/html/GPO-CONAN-1...
- john_b 12y agoIt's a nitpick, but consistency and fairness are independent qualities in legal interpretations. As the simplest example, consistently applying an unfair ruling or precedent does not result in fairness. Only by presuming that all previous court rulings (at least those that can be used as precedents) were fair, does consistency result in fairness.
- daxelrod 12y agoThis is an excellent point.