Which of the following best explains the principle of stare decisis?(A)It requires that at least four Supreme Court justices agree to hear acase.(B)It encourages presidents to take judicial experience into account whennominating judges.(C)It encourages judges to follow precedent when deciding cases.(D)It reinforces the philosophy of judicial activism.(E)It increases the number of cases judges are required to hear. Answer: CStare decisis encourages judges to follow precedent when decidingcases. 11.The term “pork barrel” refers to legislation specifically designed to(A)encourage a balanced federal budget(B)ensure the careful inspection of farm goods and other foodstuffs(C)distribute excess produce to the poor(D)provide funding for local projects that are intended to benefitconstituents(E)equalize representation between farming and nonfarming states Answer: DPork Barrelling is when legislatorsprovide funding for local projects thatare intended to benefit constituents so that they are seen as more favorable. 12.All the following are consideredenumeratedpowers of the congress EXCEPTA.) Establishing inferior courts in addition to the supreme courtB.) Setting up the first national bank of the USC.) Regulating commerce among the several statesD.) Coining US currency after the constitution was ratified Answer: BSetting up the national bank was an implied power enabled by thenecessary and proper clause. 13.The bill of rights was added to the constitutionA) After the ratification process was complete, and partly to fulfill a promise tothose who supported ratificationB) During the ratification process, before final ratification of the constitutionC) In 1865 after the union victory in the civil warD) During the constitutional convention, at the insistence of thomas jefferson Answer: AThe bill of rights was added after the ratification process because theAnti Federalist states refused to ratify the constitution unless a bill ofrights was added to protect their rights after the document wasratified. 14.An example of a contradiction in what people believe the government should doeconomically for social welfare is…A)Higher taxes but less government actionB)Lower taxes but less government actionC)Higher taxes but more government actionD)Lower taxes but more government actionE)None of the above Answer: BLower taxes and higher government action is a contradiction becausemore money is needed to have more government action but this canonly be done with higher taxes instead of lower taxes. 15. SHORT ANSWERPolitical Parties are linkage institutions in American Politics, helping to convertpublic preferences into governmental action.A.Describe two ways in which parties serve as linkage institutionsB.Explain two reasons why political parties have weakened over time. Answer:A)1. Parties give cues to voters; even though party ties have weakened,most voters have a party image of each party; and many voters still rely on aparty to give them cues for voting. Upload your study docs or become a Course Hero member to access this document Upload your study docs or become a Course Hero member to access this document End of preview. Want to read all 161 pages? Upload your study docs or become a Course Hero member to access this document Government, Supreme Court of the United States, United States Congress, US Supreme Court
Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions. Stare decisis is a Latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided." The U.S. common law structure has a unified system of deciding legal matters with the principle of stare decisis at its core, making the concept of legal precedent extremely important. A prior ruling or judgment on any case is known as a precedent. Stare decisis dictates that courts look to precedents when overseeing an ongoing case with similar circumstances.
A unique case with hardly any past reference material may become a precedent when the judge makes a ruling on it. Also, the new ruling on a similar present case replaces any precedent that has been overruled in a current case. Under the rule of stare decisis, courts are obligated to uphold their previous rulings or the rulings made by higher courts within the same court system. For example, the Kansas state appellate courts will follow their precedent, the Kansas Supreme Court precedent, and the U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Kansas is not obligated to follow precedents from the appellate courts of other states, say California. However, when faced with a unique case, Kansas may refer to the precedent of California or any other state that has an established ruling as a guide in setting its precedent. In effect, all courts are bound to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court, as the highest court in the country. Therefore, decisions that the highest court makes become binding precedent or obligatory stare decisis for the lower courts in the system. When the Supreme Court overturns a precedent made by courts below it in the legal hierarchy, the new ruling will become stare decisis on similar court hearings. If a case ruled in a Kansas court, which has abided by a certain precedent for decades, is taken to the U.S. Supreme Court and is then overturned by that court, the Supreme Court’s overrule replaces the former precedent, and Kansas courts would need to adapt to the new rule as precedent. In rare cases, the Supreme Court has reversed its own previous rulings—David Schultz, professor of law at the University of Minnesota and professor of political science at Hamline University, reports that between1 789 to 2020, the Court did so 145 times out of "25,544 Supreme Court opinions and judgments after oral arguments." This amounts to barely one-half of one percent. The most famous reversal to date, Schultz notes, is 1954's Brown v. Board of Education.That decision reversed the separate-but-equal doctrine ruling of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, which supported segregation. The most recent and controversial overturning of a precedent occurred on June 24, 2022, when the Court reversed Roe v. Wade, the 1973 ruling that legalized abortion, making the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization the next major case to depart from stare decesis. Insider trading in the securities industry is the misuse of material nonpublic information for financial gain. The insider can trade the information for their portfolio or sell the information to an outsider for a cost. The precedent looked to by courts when dealing with insider trading is the 1983 case of Dirks v. SEC. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that insiders are guilty if they directly or indirectly received material benefits from disclosing the information to someone who acts on it. In addition, exploiting confidential information exists when the information is gifted to a relative or friend. This decision became precedent and is upheld by courts dealing with financial crimes that are similar in nature. In the 2016 ruling of Salman v. the United States, the Supreme Court used stare decisis to make the ruling. Bassam Salman made an estimated $1.5 million from insider information that he received indirectly from his brother-in-law, Maher Kara, then a Citigroup investment banker. While Salman’s counsel believed that he should be convicted only if he compensated his brother-in-law in cash or kind, the Supreme Court judge ruled that insiders do not have to get something in return for divulging company secrets. Based on stare decisis, the confidential information given to Salman was considered a gift—as Dirks v. SEC makes it clear that fiduciary duty is breached when a tipper gives confidential information as a gift. Salman was therefore found guilty of insider trading. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York overturned the insider trading conviction of two hedge fund managers, Todd Newman and Anthony Chiasson, stating an insider can be convicted only if the misappropriated information produced a real personal benefit. When Bassam Salam appealed his 2013 conviction using the Second Circuit's ruling as precedent, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit based in San Francisco did not abide by the Second Circuit’s precedent, which it was not obligated to uphold. The Appeals Court upheld the conviction ruling on Salman. As noted above, Salman appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, stating that the Second Circuit’s ruling was inconsistent with the Supreme Court precedent set about by Dirks v. SEC and the Appeals Court had, therefore, not adhered to the principle of stare decisis. The Supreme Court disagreed and also upheld the conviction. "Salman’s conduct is in the heartland of Dirks’s rule concerning gifts," Justice Alito wrote. |
Which of the following best explains the principle of stare decisis?
Related Posts
Copyright © 2024 ShotOnMac Inc.
