IMHO, this decision most clearly showed that the Roberts court doesn't give a shit for stare decisis when they want a particular outcome. They've overturned precedent that's recent, they've overturned precedent that's close to a hundred years old. This trend accelerated under the latter end of the Rehnquist years (Google Thurgood Marshall's sentiments on victim-impact statements), but the Roberts court is now barely even doing it with a straight face.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-01-22 05:27 pm (UTC)