He was referring to 85 years of judicial precedent, of Supreme Court precedent, with regard to matters like the one under consideration.
Unlawful legislation proceeds, not on judicial precedent but legal semantics.
And he also expressed his faith that the Supreme Court would keep to that 85-year history of judicial precedent, and uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.
He has also made clear that, in part, for that reason, or largely for that reason, that he believes that not just that his personal belief and our belief here in the administration that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, but that the Court will find it to be so as well because of all that many years of judicial precedent.
But I guess you could argue that circuit court judges who ruled on this were trying to intimidate or influence the Court when they issued opinions, including very prominent conservative judges on the circuit -- court of appeals, rather -- when they issued an opinion -- opinions that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and that it is entirely constitutional, in keeping with 80-plus years of judicial precedent.
No precedent, judicial or legislative, exists upholding anything like the power of Congress to impose an individual mandate compelling all citizens in America to purchase particular products and services.
FORBES: ObamaCare and the Constitution Are Contradictory: One Must Fall
The court majority, self-styled believers in precedent and judicial restraint, overturned two major Supreme Court decisions and reversed decades of campaign-finance laws aimed at preventing corporations from having undo influence over local, state and national elections.
WSJ: Ralph Nader and Robert Weissman: The Case Against Corporate Speech
Given that the judicial system is built on precedent, that is a rather dubious claim.
Lawyers and lower-court judges claim that precedent would smother judicial conscience, but the government backs it (reluctantly), and so may Congress.
Roberts, during his confirmation hearing, made much of his judicial modesty and his respect for precedent.
Scotland coach Matt Williams slammed the decision as "inconsistent with the rules of the game" and warned the all-Australian appeals panel had set a dangerous precedent that could turn rugby's judicial system into a farce.
BBC: SPORT | Rugby Union | Internationals | Grimes fails with appeal
And that's precisely the point: Unless Sotomayor's opponents can succeed in using her judicial record to portray her as a passionate, wild-eyed judge who depends more on emotion more than legal precedent, they're in for a tough time.
应用推荐