Supreme Ct. 9-27

Supreme Ct. 9-27 - Other ways of testing precedent Examine...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Other ways of testing precedent o Examine whether dissenters from precedent later follow precedent. o Do justices who dissent to a certain opinion, cite the same opinion in another statement? o What should happen? o (if precedent really matters then….)Justices who dissent when a precedent is established shold follow that precedent in subsequent cases o Ex) Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. Ruling: “private litigants may not eliminate jurors on the basis of race” O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Scalia dissented o Ex) Following year: McCollum v. Georgia Ruling: “Criminal defendants may not eliminate jurors on the basis of race” Rehnquist supported the precedent in which he dissented He stated in his decision that he still felt that Edmonson v. Leesville was decided wrong, but also stated that the precedent that was stated changed the law and he therefore had to follow it. (Rare occurrence) o Almost always, justices continue to dissent, even after precedent has been set earlier
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 2

Supreme Ct. 9-27 - Other ways of testing precedent Examine...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online