Stare decisis

This is another one of those moments when I am glad I took four years of Latin in high school (and a refresher quarter of Vergil at UCLA). Tibi gratias ago, Magistra Wiley; requiescas in Christi pace.

Stare decisis is a legal term. It means to stand by what has been decided (that's my non-legal translation from the Latin, but it helps the whole thing make sense). You may find an expanded definition at Lectlaw where it says:

Although the doctrine of stare decisis does not prevent reexamining and, if need be, overruling prior decisions, "It is . . . a fundamental jurisprudential policy that prior applicable precedent usually must be followed even though the case, if considered anew, might be decided differently by the current justices. This policy . . . 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system; i.e., that parties should be able to regulate their conduct and enter into relationships with reasonable assurance of the governing rules of law.'" (Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Companies (1988) 46 Cal.3d 287, 296.)

One of the major issues at stake in the appointment and confirmation of judges these days is whether they really, really believe in stare decisis (e.g., are they chomping at the bit to overturn Roe v Wade?).

With this basic principle (that allows for "certainty, predictability and stability in the law") in mind, we take glad note of a tidbit from Is That Legal? [and thank DailyKos for pointing toward it]:

In 1926, the Mississippi Supreme Court called the water cure torture. No qualifiers. No hedging. Just plain, good ol' fashion torture . . . and therefore a forbidden means for securing a confession. These men were hardly a group I'd call *activist* or *liberal* and certainly not bent on subverting our country in the name of coddling criminals.

My, my, my.

I recommend reading the whole article by guest blogger Shertaugh, who sums up a discussion of Fisher v. State, 110 So. 361, 362 (Miss. 1926) thusly:

If "the cure" was seen as a barbarous form of torture in Mississippi in the 1920's, I guess I'm at a loss to understand exactly how our attitudes about the process have progressed to see it as an acceptable means of interrogation 80 years later.

"Progressed" indeed.

I should like to point out that opposition to waterboarding is not a "liberal" position: it is very conservative--upholding law and tradition, insisting on very traditional moral values. To support waterboarding, even to imply that it might be OK sometimes, is a position of lawlessness and gross moral degeneracy. It is also, practically, incredibly stupid. Do we really want every knee-jerk group out there waterboarding our troops or civilians when they capture them?

SSJOAS.

Keep standing up for truth, pilgrims!

Water drop photo via Dpspiderman
--the BB