Q1- Should stare decisis be such a powerful doctrine that it trumps modern societal realities (such as baseball’s growing use of interstate commerce via radio and television)? Be sure to explain your answers. Stare decisis means a court will stand by a ruling previously issued in earlier cases. This method is used to determine rulings in lower courts as well. Once a court has issued a ruling, all lower courts must have the same response in future cases No and yes. No because, times are changing therefore decision should not be made based on previous decisions the reason I state this is, we have seen decision made in the past that were made unjustly or bias for example the Pace VS Alabama (1883) case about interracial relationships, however this was over turn after Loving VS Virginia, times changed and more people were being involved in interracial relationships, therefore stare decisis should …show more content…
In Flood’s case he should have talked to a lawyer before signing a contract. Mr. Flood in my opinion has seen players been traded through out Baseball; surely he must have known there was a 50/50 chance that he might get traded to either a better team or a worse team. Another reason why I say they should not be exempted is because one of the purpose of the Sherman Act is not to protect competitors from harm from legitimately successful businesses, nor to prevent businesses from gaining honest profits from consumers, but rather to preserve a competitive marketplace to protect consumers from abuses however in Mr. Flood case there is no abuse but rather he feared to play for a team that was not great and was known for having fans who were racist. Mr. Flood, has two option either leave and not get paid or wait a year in order to move to another
Fraud is one of Canada's most severe acts of financial criminality as the economic impact of this crime could potentially handicap an entire society. According to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre Annual Statistic Report (CAFC), a report established to monitor fraud with the aid of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and Competition Bureau of Canada, it reported an annual loss of 74 million dollars affecting over 14,472 victims (Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, 2014). Given this alarming statistic, it is worrisome that we as a society still ignore or turn a blind eye towards those who commit fraud as seen in the low conviction (Canada Revenue Agency, 2014), and focus our efforts on petty thefts as seen with the high rate of convictions
For this assignment, we learned that Maurice Clarett filed a case against the NFL where he argued that the NFL’s three-year rule acted as an unreasonable restraint in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Act. On the other hand, the NFL argued that its three-year rule was covered from the antitrust laws by the nonstatutory labor exemption. First, the case was reviewed by the district court which concluded that the NFL's eligibility rules violated antitrust laws by requiring the player to wait at least three years before entering the NFL draft and that the eligibility criteria was not immune from those antitrust laws. The court favored Clarett making him eligible for the 2004 NFL Draft.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that although the doctrine of stare decisis plays an important role, standing precedent can be abandoned to allow for evolving societal standards of behavior or expectations.
When the rights of the American citizen are on the line than the judiciary should utilize the powers invested in them to protect and enforce what is constitutional. However, in times of controversy, where personal preference or aspects of religious or personal nature are at hand, the judiciary should exercise their power with finesse, thereby acting out judicial restraint. An example of such is in the case of Engel v. Vitale where Mr. Justice Black delivered the opinion of the court directing the School District’s principal to read a prayer at the commencement of each school day. In cases that do not regard whether an action is constitutional or not, the judiciary should suppress their power of judicial review.
Curt Flood was as crucial to the economic rights of ballplayers as Jackie Robinson was to breaking the color barrier. A three-time All-Star and seven-time winner of the Gold Glove for his defensive prowess in center field, Flood hit more than .300 six times during a 15-year major league career that began in 1956. Twelve of those seasons were spent wearing the uniform of the St. Louis Cardinals. After the 1969 season, the Cardinals attempted to trade Flood, then 31 years of age, to the Philadelphia Phillies, which set in motion his historic challenge of baseball’s infamous "reserve clause." The reserve clause was that part of the standard player’s contract which bound the player, one year at a time, in perpetuity to the club owning his contract. Flood had no interest in moving to Philadelphia, a city he had always viewed as racist ("the nation’s northernmost southern city"), but more importantly, he objected to being treated as a piece of property and to the restriction of freedom embedded in the reserve clause.
Following the Jim Crow laws of the time, The Monarchs were an all-black league. There was no official law prohibiting black people from playing in major league sports, but the separation was silently and persistently enforced by all owners, presidents, and associates of virtually every major league sports team. Robinson’s luck would change and the U.S.’s view of race would be challenged in 1947, when the president of the Brooklyn Dodgers, Branch Rickey, recruited Robinson into the major leagues.
Judicial Activism- judges should interpret and apply the law in the light of ongoing changes in conditions and values
Supreme Court Justices demonstrate judicial restraint when they refrain from acting as policymakers, deferring to the legislative and executive branches of the federal government, as long as the policymakers stay within the boundaries as established by the United States Constitution. Stare decisis, a legal principle where precedent decisions are followed, plays a major role in judicial restraint. The current Chief Justice, John Roberts Jr., showed judicial restraint in his majority opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012) (Root, 2012). In this opinion, Chief Justice Roberts clearly explains judicial restraint: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius,
An important point to keep in mind is that all binding decisions are initiated at the highest court at either the federal or state level. These decisions are precedent only in the jurisdiction where the court presides. Stare decisis refers to the practice of the courts adhering to previously rendered decisions. This is especially true involving United States Supreme Court decisions that have binding authority on both the federal and the state courts. Remember that court decisions in the same jurisdiction only have persuasive authority which is not binding.
The book, Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee (Dee Goong An), takes place in China, during the Tang dynasty. The Tang dynasty took place from 618-907 CE and included both Confucian and Legalist influences. Located in the Province of Shantung, is the town district called Chang-Ping, where Dee Goong An served as the town 's magistrate. A magistrate is a judge, detective, and peacekeeper who captures criminals and is responsible for their punishments. The people of China looked at magistrates as the "mother and father" of their town. Magistrates received a large amount of respect from the people due to the amount of authority and power they had. With so many people relying on him to make their home
Today, China is ranked as the nation with the largest population in the world. It is also a fact that China is amongst one of the countries whose economy is growing at a very rapid rate. It is quite imperative to note that capitalism has been the dominant in this nation, which enables it to not only strengthen, but also capture great regional as well as global influence. Even though China has been rediscovering its ancient tradition elements whilst repackaging them to be in line with modernity, it is evident that the visions embraced are very different from the ones in the West. The Celebrated Cases of Judge Dee is a perfect publication that sheds light to the reader on the various social, political and moral issues that existed in China decades ago and the ways of resolving them. Comparing the legal issues in China decades ago, a thin line can be drawn. This is inherently because nothing much has changed in terms social, political and moral perspectives. The celebrated cases of Judge Dee borrow a lot from the Chinese culture, which defines the standard morals and values for its people. Consequently, the legal system in this nation appears to rely wholly on the defined moral standards in reprimanding wrongdoers.
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
“ ….Judgments, right or wrong. This concern with concepts such as finality, jurisdiction, and the balance of powers may sound technical, lawyerly, and highly abstract. But so is the criminal justice system….Law must provide simple answers: innocence or guilt, freedom or imprisonment, life or death.” (Baude, 21).
Something more common is stare decisis, which is a type of methodology, and common law that they use along with interpreting the constitution. It is used so judges have some type of consistency and are bound to their past decisions. Stare decisis there are four primary reasons to follow it, it treats cases the the same, makes the law more predictable, strengthens judicial decision making and furthers stability (Oldfather, 2014). This is important in regards to constitutional interpretation because it is basically saying that judge is also bound to past constitutional interpretation. Some of the precedents produced by stare decisis are bad, but that’s because the system is not perfect. The implementation of precedence is also complicated because you have to find cases that are sufficiently alike and most cases are not identical (Oldfather, 2014). Another significant factor in stare decisis, is that the courts usually feel more comfortable in overruling constitutional precedents than amending the constitution, which is much more difficult. Stare decisis is commonly used in adjudication, probably the most prominent articulation of it was in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, where they analyzed if they wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, in terms of its workability (Oldfather,
The rule of law, simply put, is a principle that no one is above the law. This means that there should be no leniency for a person because of peerage, sex, religion or financial standing. England and Wales do not have a written constitution therefore the Rule of Law, which along with the parliamentary Sovereignty was regarded by legal analyst A.C Dicey, as the pillars of the UK Constitution. The Rule of Law was said to be adopted as the “unwritten constitution of Great Britain”.