The Role of Legal Precedent in U.S. Judicial Decision-Making
Introduction to Legal Precedent
In the United States, judges are expected to apply the law impartially and consistently, similar to how umpires decide balls and strikes in a baseball game. As Chief Justice Roberts famously described, judges should be like 'calling balls and strikes.' This means that judges should base their decisions on established legal precedents rather than inventing new ones whenever convenient.
Understanding Statutes and Precedents
Legal precedents function much like the ground rules and basic elements of baseball. Statutes and precedents provide the foundational framework within which judges must work. Just as baseball has standardized rules and procedures, the law has established statutes and precedents that must be applied consistently, without unnecessary deviation.
For example, in a case where the situation resembles 'the bottom of the 9th with two outs and runners on the corners' in a baseball game, the precedents and statutes must be applied. These precedents can be as old as the 'separate but equal' doctrine, which was established at the end of the 19th century and lasted for half a century. This doctrine was famously overturned in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954.
Challenges and Recourse with New Precedents
The Supreme Court, as the final arbiter, may sometimes face criticism for its nontight adherence to precedents. For instance, in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and MCCoy v. City of Lawrence, the Court overruled long-standing precedents. These decisions have sparked intense debate about the proper role of judicial precedent.
While the Court has the authority to create new legal precedents, there must be recourse if the new decisions are controversial or widely disliked. Constitutional amendments or legislation can provide a means to challenge such changes. The Brown v. Board of Education decision, which ended the Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine, illustrates how new precedents can overturn long-standing injustices.
Strategies for Resolving Supremacy in the Judicial System
Historically, when the judicial system faces significant legal confusions or crises, such as during the Great Depression, the political sphere often intervenes. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who faced a Supreme Court that frequently invalidated his New Deal policies, took a pragmatic approach. He proposed a statute that would allow for the appointment of additional Supreme Court Justices, referred to as the 'court-packing' plan.
Although Congress did not ultimately pass FDR's court-restructuring bill, it is noteworthy that in 1936 and 1937, four anti-New Deal Justices began to change their stance. This 'switch in time that saved nine' allowed the Supreme Court to support necessary New Deal legislation without the need for additional Justices.
The lessons from FDR's strategy remind us that resolving judicial issues often requires political action rather than judicial overreach. Winning elections and appointing Justices with desired judicial leanings are key strategies to ensure the alignment of the judiciary with the broader political and societal ethos.
As Chief Justice Roberts becomes more dominant, it becomes crucial to remember that his decisions, while influential, must be grounded in the rule of law and the broader implications for social justice. The historical experience of the New Deal era and the subsequent shifts in Supreme Court composition underscore the significance of political engagement in shaping the judiciary.