@JamesK: Precedent must be examined when trying to resolve situations which are not adequately addressed by any other existing law, but its legitimate authority is limited to such cases. If the Supreme Court issues a ruling which would be grossly and patently inconsistent with any remotely plausible reading of the Constitution and other laws, those sworn by oath to uphold the Constitution ...
What incentives prevent this from happening right now? As I understand it, most lower court decisions treat Supreme Court precedent, especially recent precedent, as inarguable truth, forming the axiomatic basis of the lower court's decisions.
Surrounding the Impeachment trial of President Trump, many news outlets have voiced that an acquittal will set a precedent. Does this mean that subsequent presidents will be able to do the same thi...
While the title seems to be about altering precedent, you seem to indicate you're looking for situations where a full reversal of position happens. Can you clarify whether you are seeking specific, about-face reversals, or simply alterations (in line with hszmv's current answer)? It seems to me the former is a more interesting, worthwhile question, while the latter happens on a fairly regular ...
Has the US Supreme court ever altered its own precedent on the same ...
This position was the reason for the conduct of the Civil War and is now a powerful non-judicial constitutional precedent in the U.S. Therefore, in the eyes of the winners of the Civil War, Union government elections were suspended.
So why is Judge Sotomayor, and others, implying that this precedent allows the US president to kill people at will? I'm inclined to think that Justice Sotomayor had a variety of reasons, some of them tending to the rhetorical.