- published: 27 Jun 2014
- views: 13439
Create your page here
Wednesday, 20 April 2016
-
remove the playlistBinding Precedent
- remove the playlistBinding Precedent
back to playlist
An introduction to doctrine of precedent, especially for A level law
What is binding case law? This video discusses binding precedent in the United States. Please submit your comments below and visit my blog and message board. Also feel free to send me an email.
blog: http://uslawessentials.com/blog
message board: http://uslawessentials.com/forum
- published: 10 May 2014
- views: 1183
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 1 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 1367
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 2 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 360
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 4 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 174
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 5 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 144
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 6 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 116
In law, a binding precedent (also mandatory precedent or binding authority) is a precedent which must be followed by all lower courts under common law legal systems. In English law it is usually created by the decision of a higher court, such as the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which took over the judicial functions of the House of Lords in 2009. In Civil law and pluralist systems precedent is not binding but case law is taken into account by the courts.
Binding precedent relies on the legal principle of stare decisis. Stare decisis means to stand by things decided. It ensures certainty and consistency in the application of law. Existing binding precedents from past cases are applied in principle to new situations by analogy.
There are three elements needed for a precedent to work. Firstly, the hierarchy of the courts needs to be accepted, and an efficient system of law reporting. 'A balance must be struck between the need on one side for the legal certainty resulting from the binding effect of previous decisions, and on the other side the avoidance of undue restriction on the proper development of the law (1966 Practice Statement (Judicial Precedent) by Lord Gardiner L.C.)'.
This page contains text from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_precedent
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, which means that you can copy and modify it as long as the entire work (including additions) remains under this license.
- Loading...
-
11:11doctrine of precedent
doctrine of precedentdoctrine of precedent
An introduction to doctrine of precedent, especially for A level law -
19:18avoiding a binding precedent
avoiding a binding precedentavoiding a binding precedent
Made with Explain Everything -
2:24What is binding case law?
What is binding case law?What is binding case law?
What is binding case law? This video discusses binding precedent in the United States. Please submit your comments below and visit my blog and message board. Also feel free to send me an email. blog: http://uslawessentials.com/blog message board: http://uslawessentials.com/forum -
0:21Binding Precedents
Binding Precedents -
14:1412. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)
12. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)12. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)
Binding and persuasive precedent in the federal court system -
9:50Lecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial Precedent
Lecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial PrecedentLecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial Precedent
-
13:22Persuasive Precedent
Persuasive PrecedentPersuasive Precedent
Made with Explain Everything -
11:01Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 1 of 13 -
7:19Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 2 of 13 -
6:36Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 4 of 13 -
8:57Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 5 of 13 -
7:26Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 6 of 13 -
8:21Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 7 of 13 -
7:13Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 8 of 13
-
doctrine of precedent
An introduction to doctrine of precedent, especially for A level law -
avoiding a binding precedent
Made with Explain Everything -
What is binding case law?
What is binding case law? This video discusses binding precedent in the United States. Please submit your comments below and visit my blog and message board. Also feel free to send me an email. blog: http://uslawessentials.com/blog message board: http://uslawessentials.com/forum -
-
12. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)
Binding and persuasive precedent in the federal court system -
Lecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial Precedent
-
Persuasive Precedent
Made with Explain Everything -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 9
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 10
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 11
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 12
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 13
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary... -
Law Justice Humanity
aw is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people. -
what is law?
what is law? Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, -
Legal Internships - Internships & Law Fellowships
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. -
Concurring Opinions, Dissenting Opinions, and Case Law
This video discusses how dissenting and concurring opinions, while not binding precedent, may still be influential. To discuss further, feel free to send me an email and to comment below. Also, please visit my website and blog. I offer online tutoring and consultations with discounts for subscribers. website: http://www.uslawessentials.squarespace.com blog: http://www.uslawessentials.squarespace.com/blog email:uslawessentials at gmail dot com Twitter:https://twitter.com/uslawessentials United States Law: An Introduction for International Students is available at: https://www.amazon.com/author/danieledelson
doctrine of precedent
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 11:11
- Updated: 27 Jun 2014
- views: 13439
An introduction to doctrine of precedent, especially for A level law
An introduction to doctrine of precedent, especially for A level law
wn.com/Doctrine Of Precedent
An introduction to doctrine of precedent, especially for A level law
- published: 27 Jun 2014
- views: 13439
avoiding a binding precedent
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 19:18
- Updated: 04 Jan 2016
- views: 69
Made with Explain Everything
Made with Explain Everything
wn.com/Avoiding A Binding Precedent
What is binding case law?
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:24
- Updated: 10 May 2014
- views: 1183
What is binding case law? This video discusses binding precedent in the United States. Please submit your comments below and visit my blog and message board. ...
What is binding case law? This video discusses binding precedent in the United States. Please submit your comments below and visit my blog and message board. Also feel free to send me an email.
blog: http://uslawessentials.com/blog
message board: http://uslawessentials.com/forum
wn.com/What Is Binding Case Law
What is binding case law? This video discusses binding precedent in the United States. Please submit your comments below and visit my blog and message board. Also feel free to send me an email.
blog: http://uslawessentials.com/blog
message board: http://uslawessentials.com/forum
- published: 10 May 2014
- views: 1183
Binding Precedents
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 0:21
- Updated: 12 Jun 2014
- views: 113
Just playing with Stop Motion Animation and the Law
Just playing with Stop Motion Animation and the Law
wn.com/Binding Precedents
12. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 14:14
- Updated: 22 Aug 2013
- views: 7158
Binding and persuasive precedent in the federal court system
Binding and persuasive precedent in the federal court system
wn.com/12. Binding And Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)
Lecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial Precedent
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 9:50
- Updated: 27 Jun 2013
- views: 9638
- published: 27 Jun 2013
- views: 9638
Persuasive Precedent
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 13:22
- Updated: 05 Jan 2016
- views: 74
Made with Explain Everything
Made with Explain Everything
wn.com/Persuasive Precedent
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 11:01
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 1367
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 1 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 1 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 1367
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 7:19
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 360
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 2 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 2 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 360
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 6:36
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 174
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 4 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 4 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 174
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 8:57
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 144
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 5 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 5 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 144
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 7:26
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 116
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 6 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 6 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 116
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 8:21
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 124
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 7 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 7 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 124
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 7:13
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 137
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 8 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 8 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 137
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 9
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 9:57
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 162
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 9 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 9
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 9 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 162
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 10
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 12:21
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 135
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 10 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 10
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 10 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 135
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 11
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 9:24
- Updated: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 64
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 11 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 11
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 11 of 13
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 64
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 12
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 7:07
- Updated: 16 Mar 2010
- views: 76
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 12 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 12
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 12 of 13
- published: 16 Mar 2010
- views: 76
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 13
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 7:56
- Updated: 16 Mar 2010
- views: 102
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where muc...
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 13 of 13
wn.com/Originalism, Precedent And Judicial Restraint, Pt. 13
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is as interpreter of law, not maker of law. However, in a world where much binding precedent has been decided on grounds other than original intent, this restrained view of the judiciary is sometimes thought to stand often in stark contrast with the originalist movement. Originalists have had two ways of treating precedent. One is to dismiss non-originalist precedent as inconsistent with originalism. This approach would allow judges to dramatically change the law. A second approach is to suggest that precedent can be reconciled with originalism. But this approach would require determinate rules to prioritize originalism and precedent. This panel will explore the conflict between a restrained judiciary and original constitutional interpretation as well as possible means through which the two may be reconciled. The Federalist Society's Student Division presented this panel at the 2010 Annual Student Symposium on February 27, 2010. Panelists included Justice Stephen Markman of the Michigan Supreme Court; Prof. Mike Rappaport of the University of San Diego School of Law; Prof. Jeffrey Rosen of The George Washington University School of Law; Prof. David Strauss of the University of Chicago Law School; and Judge Gene Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as the moderator. Part 13 of 13
- published: 16 Mar 2010
- views: 102
Law Justice Humanity
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 0:33
- Updated: 08 Apr 2016
- views: 107
aw is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator...
aw is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.
wn.com/Law Justice Humanity
aw is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions. Private individuals can create legally binding contracts, including arbitration agreements that may elect to accept alternative arbitration to the normal court process. The formation of laws themselves may be influenced by a constitution, written or tacit, and the rights encoded therein. The law shapes politics, economics, history and society in various ways and serves as a mediator of relations between people.
- published: 08 Apr 2016
- views: 107
what is law?
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 0:55
- Updated: 31 Mar 2016
- views: 79
what is law?
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a sin...
what is law?
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent,
wn.com/What Is Law
what is law?
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent,
- published: 31 Mar 2016
- views: 79
Legal Internships - Internships & Law Fellowships
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 0:29
- Updated: 31 Jan 2016
- views: 138
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislat...
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.
wn.com/Legal Internships Internships Law Fellowships
Law is a system of rules that are enforced through social institutions to govern behaviour. Laws can be made by a collective legislature or by a single legislator, resulting in statutes, by the executive through decrees and regulations, or by judges through binding precedent, normally in common law jurisdictions.
- published: 31 Jan 2016
- views: 138
Concurring Opinions, Dissenting Opinions, and Case Law
- Order: Reorder
- Duration: 2:45
- Updated: 07 Sep 2014
- views: 1411
This video discusses how dissenting and concurring opinions, while not binding precedent, may still be influential.
To discuss further, feel free to send me an ...
This video discusses how dissenting and concurring opinions, while not binding precedent, may still be influential.
To discuss further, feel free to send me an email and to comment below. Also, please visit my website and blog. I offer online tutoring and consultations with discounts for subscribers.
website: http://www.uslawessentials.squarespace.com
blog: http://www.uslawessentials.squarespace.com/blog
email:uslawessentials at gmail dot com
Twitter:https://twitter.com/uslawessentials
United States Law: An Introduction for International Students is available at:
https://www.amazon.com/author/danieledelson
wn.com/Concurring Opinions, Dissenting Opinions, And Case Law
This video discusses how dissenting and concurring opinions, while not binding precedent, may still be influential.
To discuss further, feel free to send me an email and to comment below. Also, please visit my website and blog. I offer online tutoring and consultations with discounts for subscribers.
website: http://www.uslawessentials.squarespace.com
blog: http://www.uslawessentials.squarespace.com/blog
email:uslawessentials at gmail dot com
Twitter:https://twitter.com/uslawessentials
United States Law: An Introduction for International Students is available at:
https://www.amazon.com/author/danieledelson
- published: 07 Sep 2014
- views: 1411
close fullscreen
- Playlist
- Chat
close fullscreen
- Playlist
- Chat
11:11
doctrine of precedent
An introduction to doctrine of precedent, especially for A level law
published: 27 Jun 2014
doctrine of precedent
doctrine of precedent
- Report rights infringement
- published: 27 Jun 2014
- views: 13439
19:18
avoiding a binding precedent
Made with Explain Everything
published: 04 Jan 2016
avoiding a binding precedent
avoiding a binding precedent
- Report rights infringement
- published: 04 Jan 2016
- views: 69
2:24
What is binding case law?
What is binding case law? This video discusses binding precedent in the United States. P...
published: 10 May 2014
What is binding case law?
What is binding case law?
- Report rights infringement
- published: 10 May 2014
- views: 1183
0:21
Binding Precedents
Just playing with Stop Motion Animation and the Law
published: 12 Jun 2014
Binding Precedents
Binding Precedents
- Report rights infringement
- published: 12 Jun 2014
- views: 113
14:14
12. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)
Binding and persuasive precedent in the federal court system
published: 22 Aug 2013
12. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)
12. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Decisis)
- Report rights infringement
- published: 22 Aug 2013
- views: 7158
9:50
Lecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial Precedent
published: 27 Jun 2013
Lecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial Precedent
Lecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial Precedent
- Report rights infringement
- published: 27 Jun 2013
- views: 9638
13:22
Persuasive Precedent
Made with Explain Everything
published: 05 Jan 2016
Persuasive Precedent
Persuasive Precedent
- Report rights infringement
- published: 05 Jan 2016
- views: 74
11:01
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is a...
published: 15 Mar 2010
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 1
- Report rights infringement
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 1367
7:19
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is a...
published: 15 Mar 2010
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 2
- Report rights infringement
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 360
6:36
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is a...
published: 15 Mar 2010
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 4
- Report rights infringement
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 174
8:57
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is a...
published: 15 Mar 2010
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 5
- Report rights infringement
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 144
7:26
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is a...
published: 15 Mar 2010
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 6
- Report rights infringement
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 116
8:21
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is a...
published: 15 Mar 2010
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 7
- Report rights infringement
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 124
7:13
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8
We often hear much about the perils of judicial activism and how a judges proper role is a...
published: 15 Mar 2010
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt. 8
- Report rights infringement
- published: 15 Mar 2010
- views: 137
doctrine of precedent...
avoiding a binding precedent...
What is binding case law?...
Binding Precedents...
12. Binding and Persuasive Authorities (Stare Deci...
Lecture 4 Part 1 : Overview of Judicial Precedent...
Persuasive Precedent...
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Originalism, Precedent and Judicial Restraint, Pt....
Law Justice Humanity...
what is law?...
Legal Internships - Internships & Law Fellowships...
Concurring Opinions, Dissenting Opinions, and Case...
photo: AP / Seth Perlman
For Workers It Is The Beginning Of History, Not The End
Edit WorldNews.com 20 Apr 2016
Article by WN.com correspondent Dallas Darling Whether the Global Billionaire Class (GBC) recognizes it, they are handcuffed to history, specifically the history of the Working Classes ... End of History for Workers Was a Means to New Process Since every end is itself a means to a new process and another end, we are living not at or after the “end of history,” as Francis Fukuyama mistakenly assumed, but at the beginning of history ... 243.....
photo: WN / Yolanda Leyba
Texas Man Sues For Right To Marry Computer In Bid To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage
Edit WorldNews.com 19 Apr 2016
A Texas man is trying to overturn legal same-sex marriage by suing for the right to marry his laptop computer, according to a story from the Midland Reporter-Telegram published on RawStory.com.Chris Sevier has filed a lawsuit against the Harris County district clerk, Gov ... “This is about who is on the right side of reality....
photo: Creative Commons / Chris 73
India still wants the UK to give the Kohinoor diamond back
Edit CNN 20 Apr 2016
(CNN)The Indian government is making "all possible efforts" to retrieve the Kohinoor diamond contrary to reported comments from the country's Solicitor General that the rare historical stone was given as a gift to the United Kingdom and not stolen ... The country's highest court is deciding on the issue after an Indian NGO filed a petition asking the court to bid for the diamond's return. Sketches of the Kohinoor from circa 1860 ... ....
photo: NASA / JPL-Caltech/UCLA/MPS/DLR/IDA
NASA's Dawn Probe Captures Bright Craters In Closeup With Dwarf Planet Ceres
Edit WorldNews.com 20 Apr 2016
NASA’s Dawn space probe has captured new images of bright craters on Ceres, the dwarf planet that lies between Jupiter and Mars, according to a published report Tuesday.The images were taken 240 miles from Ceres, the closest the spacecraft has come to the celestial body. At its lowest altitude yet, the probe has captured photos of the dwarf planet's strange bright spots....
photo: AP / Frank Augstein
Mass killer Breivik’s human rights violated in prison
Edit The Irish Times 20 Apr 2016
Right-wing extremist Anders Behring Breivik’s human rights have been violated during his imprisonment for terrorism and mass murder, a Norwegian court has ruled ... Agencies. . . ....
« back to news headlines
FERC authorizes Magnolia LNG Project and Lake Charles Expansion Project (FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission)
Edit Public Technologies 15 Apr 2016
In its application, Kinder Morgan Louisiana states that during the binding open season conducted from February 14 through March 7, 2014, Magnolia submitted the only confirming bid, and has executed a binding precedent agreement for all of the 1,400,000 Dth/d of north-to-south transportation capability to be created by Kinder Morgan Louisiana's proposed project....
Edit Memo: Merrick Garland, The Supreme Court and Money and Politics: What Difference would a Justice Garland Make? (People For the American Way)
Edit Public Technologies 15 Apr 2016
With these propositions as binding legal precedent, the D.C ... In fact, it tells us very little about the views of Judge Garland or any of the other judges on the appellate court, other than that they faithfully obeyed the recent and binding precedent in Citizens United ... The court explained that under its interpretation of Supreme Court precedent, a ......
Reviving a good idea
Edit The Hindu 14 Apr 2016
It was a good idea in the first place, but unfortunately it did not survive judicial scrutiny ... Introduced in 2010 through amendments to existing regulations relating to medical and dental admissions, NEET had a few laudable objectives ... Pai Foundation (2002) ... Justice A.R ... The Bench has said the majority in the earlier verdict had not followed binding precedents and pronounced a hasty order without internal discussion among the judges....
MCI can conduct NEET exams ‘pending fresh judgement’
Edit Indian Express 12 Apr 2016
Share This Article. Related Article. Jayalalithaa to PM ... 6, slideMargin. 3 }); });. A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice AR Dave was unanimous that the July 18, 2013, 2.1 verdict of the three-judge bench, which had paved the way for private colleges to conduct their own examination, “needs reconsideration” as “the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents”....
Supreme Court withdraws 2013 order on medical entrance test
Edit The Hindu 12 Apr 2016
The issue will now be heard afresh ... Dave, said in a four-page order ... “The majority view [in the 2013 judgment] has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment,” the Constitution Bench observed ... On the MCI’s petitions, these cases had been transferred to the Supreme Court. Keywords....
Supreme Court recalls order that didn’t allow common medical entrance test
Edit Indian Express 12 Apr 2016
Supreme Court of India pulled up BCCI once again. (Source. File) ... NEET is a common entrance test for admission to MBBS, BDS and post-graduate courses ... Share This Article. Related Article ... “Suffice it is to mention that the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment,” stated Monday’s order....
SC recalls its controversial 2013 verdict on medical entrance
Edit The Times of India 11 Apr 2016
A five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice A R Dave were unanimous in saying that the July 18, 2013, 2.1 verdict of the three-judge bench, which had paved the way for private colleges to conduct their own examination, "needs reconsideration" as "the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents"....
SC recalls verdict on single medical entrance test
Edit Deccan Herald 11 Apr 2016
Fresh hope for lakhs of aspirants ... “The NEET regulations are restored and MCI can conduct the examinations pending the fresh judgement,” PTI reported quoting sources ... “Suffice it is to mention that the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among the members of the bench before pronouncement of the judgment.” ... ....
Teachers ask Supreme Court to rehear union case after Scalia is replaced
Edit Topix 09 Apr 2016
The long shot petition marks the latest sign of the impact of Justice Antonin Scalia's death on the court's docket -- and hits at one of the Obama administration's arguments for confirming Judge Merrick Garland to the bench -- that 4-4 decisions offer don't set binding precedents ... ....
LexisPSL's A new era—will Shanghai emerge as a new centre for international arbitration? (Baker Botts LLP)
Edit Public Technologies 07 Apr 2016
(Source. Baker Botts LLP). Arbitration analysis ... With the SIAC and the ICC recently opening headquarters in Shanghai does this signal a growth in arbitration in China?. The SIAC and the ICC established representative offices in Shanghai in January 2016 and February 2016, respectively ... These include ... While SPC interpretations are generally followed by lower tier courts, technically they are not considered binding precedent ... (noodl....
The Perils of Our Split Supreme Court
Edit The New Republic 30 Mar 2016
If in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association is any indication, Supreme Court justices should have plenty of leisure time in Washington for the foreseeable future ... Unlike a majority Supreme Court ruling, a 4-4 split doesn’t make binding precedent for the entire nation; it just upholds the ruling of the circuit court of appeals where it was decided, in this case the 9th Circuit ... This is already happening....
Verdict corner: Federalism in settling labour disputes
Edit Yahoo Daily News 16 Mar 2016
Which is the "appropriate authority" to refer labour disputes in any central government undertaking to a labour court? ... The industrial court had upheld it ... The High Court ruled that the appropriate government for the purpose of the 1947 Act is the central government. The matter then travelled to the Supreme Court ... However, the Supreme Court rejected Kumar’s argument and held that HAL-2 cannot be regarded as a binding precedent....
Today, The Supreme Court Begins A New Chapter In Its History--Will Women Be The Losers?
Edit Huffington Post 02 Mar 2016
In an attempt to sneak around the Constitution and four decades of Supreme Court precedent, anti-choice politicians in Texas passed a law known as H.B.2 in 2013 ... But a tie vote would not be a binding precedent, leaving uncertainty for other states and highlighting more than ever the importance of the next Supreme Court appointment....
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Next page »
