pudge's Journal: Super Duper

ALITO: I personally would not get into categorizing precedents as super precedents, or super-duper precedents ...
SPECTER: Did you say 'super-duper'?
ALITO: Right.
SPECTER: Good, I like that.
ALITO: Any sort of categorization like that sort of reminds me of the size of laundry detergent in the supermarket. I agree with the underlying thought that when a precedent is reaffirmed, it strengthens the precedent ...
SPECTER: What about being reaffirmed 38 times?
ALITO: When a precedent is reaffirmed, each time it is reaffirmed, that is a factor that should be taken into account in making a judgment about stare decisis.

I demand Ultra-Double-Dog-XTREME Precedents!

[sulli]

The SCOTUS needs to get with the times.

Re:I demand Ultra-Double-Dog-XTREME Precedents!

[polymath69]

Well, names matter. As not-a-lawyer, I don't know if Dred Scott was cited much or how many times it was used as a precedent, but the alignment of this stupid decision and the homophone of the name, "dread Scott decision," surely caused people to think less of it and its conclusions. So, what luck that this guy happened to have that unusual name.

Also, the court probably did the correct thing in that case, in interpreting the law, unlike in eg. Marbury vs. Madison. That one was right but incorrect; such