Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143491
 
 

Footnotes (18)



 


 



Schauer on Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court


William A. Edmundson


Georgia State University College of Law

2008

Georgia State University Law Review, Forthcoming

Abstract:     
Recent critics of the Roberts Court chide it for its lack of regard for precedent. Fred Schauer faults these critics for erroneously assuming that a rule of stare decisis formerly played a significant role in the Supreme Court's decision-making. In fact, it has long played only a rare and weak role in the Court's work. Nonetheless, according to Schauer, the critics are to be thanked for invigorating a needed debate about the importance of "stability, consistency, settlement, reliance, notice, and predictability" in the Court's decisions. This article argues that Schauer exaggerates the weakness of stare decisis in the Court's practices; and that his call for a public debate on the merits of the norm of stare decisis can only weaken it.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 11

Keywords: Supreme Court, precedent, stare decisis, Planned Parenthood v. Casey

JEL Classification: K40, K41

Accepted Paper Series


Download This Paper

Date posted: June 11, 2008  

Suggested Citation

Edmundson, William A., Schauer on Precedent in the U.S. Supreme Court (2008). Georgia State University Law Review, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143491

Contact Information

William A. Edmundson (Contact Author)
Georgia State University College of Law ( email )
P.O. Box 4037
Urban Life Building, Room 402 140 Decatur Street
Atlanta, GA 30302-4037
United States
404-413-9167 (Phone)
404-413-9225 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://law.gsu.edu/wedmundson/
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 608
Downloads: 92
Download Rank: 165,859
Footnotes:  18

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo2 in 0.297 seconds