Precedent : Governments
Does the bill permitting lawsuits against governments set dangerous precedent?
In a rare show of unity, 97 senators voted to override President Obama’s veto of a bill permitting families of 9/11 victims to sue Saudi Arabia over its alleged support of the hijackers. The president has warned that it could strain relations or spur retaliation. Judy Woodruff gets two perspectives from Jack Quinn, a lawyer representing 9/11 families, and former Attorney General Michael Mukasey. Click here to watch the video reading
Stare decisis is a legal principle by which judges are obliged to respect the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the phrasing of the principle in the Latin maxim Stare decisis et non quieta movere: “to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed.”] In a legal context, this is understood to mean that courts should generally abide by precedents and not disturb settled matters.
In common law legal systems, a precedent, or authority, is a principle or rule established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. Common law legal systems place great value on deciding cases according to consistent principled rules so that similar facts will yield similar and predictable outcomes, and observance of precedent is the mechanism by which that goal is attained. The principle by which judges are bound to precedents is known as stare decisis. Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases (wikipedia).
Judicial Accountability and Stare Decisis – Should the US be Learning from the UK? “The purpose of this principle is to ensure legal certainty and fairness for litigants. It also means there …
“The recent ratification of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance is a very important measure as it provides the basis for the establishment of a solid legal framework in the areas of prevention, punishment, reparation and non-recurrence of enforced disappearances,” noted the experts. “This ratification should be followed immediately by implementing legislation, and, indeed, practice.”