Originally Posted by SweetHome_Bama
If the Supreme Court held itself to Stare Decisis it wouldn't have decided Citizens the way it did. If stare decisis is the goal then there would be no overturning of precedent and the Court has routinely engaged in that action.
So your claim is wrong on its face sloth, especially when you look at the Robert's court.
My look at the court is a realist position, grounded in being informed of the history of the court and its actions. You clearly are ignoring reality to take the stance you are now taking.
Roberts breakdown of Romney care, which he ruled as a tax instead of a mandate, which it is shows clearly that the man cowered in the face of a political decision and took the easy way out. That said, he didn't make the decision based on stare decisis or established precedent, he dodged the issue presented to the court entirely.
You're wrong here. Again. Roberts' decision was based upon institutional, rather than political concerns. Your "look at the court" is not a realist position; it's vulgar, common, layman, half-learned cynicism. Again, you don't know nearly as much about this stuff as you claim. That much is patently obvious.
As I said, I could pull case after case after case showing the more "activist" justices on the current Court binding themselves to stare decisis. I could eventually cure you of your ignorance, but there is no curing idiocy.