On Oct 24, 7:21 am, Dick Adams <rdad...@panix.com> wrote:
> In responding, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
>
> > The rules of stare decisis are complicated, but the bottom
> > line is that the highest court in the land is bound by
> > precedent only to the extent it determines it needs to be.
>
> What a clear, concise, and simple explanation! All these years,
> my position has been "Precedence means nothing to me."
Dick Adams: The Man With No Past (just kidding).
[background music: "Tradition" from Fiddler On The Roof]
Note that Stu said this liberty applies only to the _highest_ court of the given jurisdiction; lower courts are still bound to follow the precedents set by higher courts.
<snip discussion of board infighting over "how we used to do it">
> What I should have said is "While you may have a precedent,
> the Board has considered it and has determined that it is
> not consistent with the policies set forth after it occurred."
Organizations (such as corporations, nonprofit groups, and governments) which count on their citizens or members behaving in certain predictable ways, generally do see some value in having various settled and traditional ways of doing things, or else chaos ensues. But that doesn't mean change can't occur, just that it should be done rationally, based on sound, well-thought-out basic principles, and applied fairly so as not to unduly hurt those who were (up until the decision was made) relying on the old way of doing things.
And, of course, making change just to be silly, or as the law usually puts it, "arbitrary and capricious" decision-making, doesn't do much for the public image of the organization making the changes. This is an important consideration, especially for the courts, which rely very much for their efficacy on a public perception that they are, in a word, acting "judiciously" -- that is, rationally, fairly, and equitably.
When the courts lose that kind of respect, society collapses. It can happen, has happened in other countries (Colombia comes to mind as being at-risk, with the druglords routinely assassinating judges and attorneys, but for other reasons so does ancient Rome, Nazi Germany, and the Soviet Union), and in some ways may be happening or is at risk of happening in USA now (what with suspension of civil liberties justified by 9/11, indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanimo without charges or counsel, extraordinary renditions and torture, Bush v. Gore, and the whole rest of the mess now going on).
On a lighter note, Dick, if this happens again you may want to tell your protesting board members the old story about the stranger in town who went to the local synagogue to pray and was surprised to find that, as each of the worshipers walked up the aisle toward the Bimah (lectern) to participate in the Torah reading, they each would bow first to the left, then to the right, as they passed the midpoint of the aisle. The visitor had never done this before in his own hometown, and had no idea why they were doing it, but when it was his turn to be called up to be given the honor to read from the Torah, he, too, bowed to the left, then to the right, as he passed the midpoint of the aisle. After the services were over, and while noshing on the spread that the refreshments committee had laid out, he asked one of the local fellows about their tradition of bowing to the left, then to the right, as they passed down the aisle. "I have no idea" said the young man, "but we've always done it that way. It's a local tradition. Maybe we should ask one of the wise elders about it, and he may be able to tell us what it means." So the visitor, and his new friend, went over to greet an elderly, wizened member of the congregation and asked him, "Rebbe, why do we bow to the left, then to the right, as we pass the midpoint of the aisle on the way up to the Bimah?" And the kindly gent told them, "Well, back when I was just a Bar Mitzvah, there used to be a big chandelier that hung down there, and everyone would try to avoid bumping their head when they walked past it. A few years later, we got recessed electric lights installed on the ceiling, and took down the chandelier, but by then, the bowing had become a tradition, so we just kept doing it."
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment