Disregarding Precedent Can Harm Judicial Legitimacy, Kagan Says

[LetMyPeopleVote]

All six of the partisan hacks who voted to overturn Roe were asked if they respected precedent, Stare decsis is a key part of our system of laws. All six of these partisan hacks lied. Overturning Roe was not done due to changed circumstances but due to the changes in the membership of the court.

Roberts is a partisan hack and his defense of the other partisan hacks is sad

Link to tweet

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/disregarding-precedent-can-harm-judicial-legitimacy-kagan-says?campaign=46B237C8-336C-11ED-8FDF-81DA4F017A06&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=lawdesk

US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan warned that disregarding precedent can undermine judicial legitimacy in the latest comments by a justice speaking out about the court’s recent blockbuster term and the criticism it generated.

“Judges create legitimacy problems for themselves when they don’t act like courts” and “when they instead stray into places that look like politics,” Kagan said in remarks Monday night at the the Temple Emanu-El Streicker Center in New York.

Kagan spoke three days after Chief Justice John Roberts decried attacks on the court’s legitimacy that followed the June ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health overturning the 50-year-old abortion precedent.

In her remarks, Kagan warned, if the “entire legal system is up for grabs” whenever one justices leaves the court and another judge comes on, “that doesn’t seem a lot like law,” Kagan said.

Kagan outlined “three key things” courts can do to ensure the public will follow their rulings.

In addition to honoring precedent, she said consistently following constraining methodologies for deciding cases and deciding only what you have to are ways for judges to ensure legitimacy.

[Alpeduez21]

1. That sounds very well and good but

So what? The courts are lifetime time appointments. The people saying ‘I don’t like them’ changes nothing. Fuckheaded protest and Jill stein shitheads gave us this court. GOTV!!

[CrispyQ]

2. Yes, but her statement is a type of GOTV.

I think it's great that one of the court is calling BS on Roberts statement.

[Timewas]

3. Already

Illegitimate, but congress can fix it by expanding it. That has been done before and can be done now... But I have seen several of them including Biden that say that is not the answer. If not then what is??

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority to change the size of the Supreme Court. Congress has used that authority seven times before. To restore balance and integrity to a broken institution, Congress must expand the Supreme Court by four or more seats.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. With jabs at her colleagues, Justice Kagan warns the court 'needs to act like a court'

Alito's opinion ignored and rejected precedent without any justification other than the right-wing partisan hacks on the court now have the votes to overturn decisions they do not like. Each of the judges who joined Alito in this horrible decision had each swore under oath that they would follow precedent. The right-wing partisan hacks committed perjury and violated their oaths.

Link to tweet

https://www.courthousenews.com/with-jabs-at-her-colleagues-justice-kagan-warns-the-court-needs-to-act-like-a-court/

Justice Elena Kagan said the high court’s legitimacy could be marred by the public viewing the justices as an extension of the political process because its rulings are guided by changes in membership instead of adherence to the Constitution. ....

The high court’s public approval has taken a nosedive following the overturning of Roe v. Wade in June. Since then, questions about the court’s legitimacy have also ramped up. Kagan said she does not view legitimacy in terms of which opinions are popular — as Chief Justice John Roberts opined on earlier this week — but instead on the court doing its job.

“I would say it's when a court is legitimate when it's acted like a court,” Kagan said. “A court does not have any warrant, does not have any rightful authority, to do anything else than act like a court. It doesn't have the authority to make political decisions. It doesn't have the authority to make policy decisions. Its authority is bounded and the court should be constantly aware of that.”

To act like a court, Kagan said the court needs to follow precedent. She said judges should respect and defer to their predecessors. Kagan also said this adherence to precedent allows the public to see that the court’s decisions are not all about politics.

“If a new judge comes in, if there are new members of a court, and all of a sudden everything is up for grabs, all of a sudden very fundamental principles of law are being overthrown or being replaced, then people have a right to say, you know, what's going on there, that doesn't seem very lawlike,” Kagan said. “That just seems as though people with one set of policy views are replacing another.”

[LetMyPeopleVote]

5. For this thread

Link to tweet

[Conjuay]

6. too late, honeybunch.

[msfiddlestix]

7. ✔️ ... That Ship has Sailed.