Anons lawfag here with a report on an important case/step in the war vs the DS and restoration of the RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION - first a short context intro on the concept of STARE DECISIS - which is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of "legal precedent" and is so ingrained in our legal system it is nearly a sacred cow. BUT should it be? Is this a good thing or another cabal device?

John Locke, a great protector of personal rights, pointed out that "…precedent is the record of what was decided, not what was well decided."

The stated goal of this doctrine is certainly rational: deciding cases according to consistent principled rules, so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes. Sounds good right? But is there something wrong here? IMO yes. As with most govt. practices it has been MIS-used as both sword and shield to acheive and maintain govt, power. Surprised? Doubt it. (I could give plenty examples but then anon would post the "you wrote so much text" meme)

But just consider this: wikipedia states: "…precedent is a third kind of law, on equal footing with statutory law… and regulatory law " OH REALLY?

Now - with the restructuring of the court system under POTUS and THE PLAN that question is now front and center and showing results. In their writings and nomination hearings, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both saluted the flag of "stare decisis" but it now appears they are very willing to depart from this to correct basic wrongs in the system - good for them!

Leftist journalists (and some conservatives and even ANONS) are perplexed by Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh seeming to contradict each other, and often switching to either the conservative or liberal sides to gain majority opinion rulings, what they are actually doing is leading an attack on “Stare Decisis - Heres this weeks examples:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD OF CALIFORNIA v. HYATT

No. 17–1299. Argued January 9, 2019—Decided May 13, 2019

THOMAS, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,

C. J., and ALITO, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. BREYER, J.,

filed a dissenting opinion, in which GINSBURG, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN,

JJ., joined. - YUP - 5-4 AGAIN OUR WIN

In all honesty anons the case is BORING and technical and that matters not. In fact I wont even bother to summarize the particular facts and law cuz that is not the point of My post. if you want read it link provided KEK…

NOPE: here is the takeway direct from the opinion: "Stare decisis is “‘not an inexorable command,’” and is “at its weakest” when interpreting the Constitution. The Court’s precedents identify, as relevant here, four factors to consider: thequality of the decision’s reasoning, its consistency with related decisions, legal developments since the decision, and reliance on the decision. The first three factors support overruling (precedent in this case) As to the fourth, case-specific reliance interests are not sufficient to persuade this Court to adhere to an incorrect resolution of an important constitutional question."

THE KEY ITEM: "Stare decisis is “‘not an inexorable command,’” and is “at its weakest” when interpreting the Constitution."

And again - today HERRERA V WYOMING - in which the landmark precedent Ward vs Racehorse was OVER RULED - is the fourth such "precedent" Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have combined to destroy - foreshadowing the destruction of ROE V. WADE…

ITS HABBENING…………..

LINK TO DECISIONS: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/franchise-hyatt.pdf

HERRERA

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf