The Stare Decisis Scam

The corrupt legal system follows a rule called "stare decisis". This means that previous decisions must be respected. Once a specific ruling has been made, all future rulings must follow it.

In practice, this means that once a bad decision has been made, it has the full force of law and is now irreversible. The only major Supreme Court decisions that have been reversed have been ones that restrained red market power. For example, originally corporations were not allowed to own property and enter contracts, but the Supreme Court reversed this after years of lobbying.

The Supreme Court has ruled that defense attorneys may not remind the jury of their jury nullification privilege. This effectively repeals trial by jury. Juries no longer have the ability to vote "not guilty" when the law is unjust, except when someone who understands jury nullification makes it onto the jury.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is acceptable to question jurors. Jurors may be struck from the trial for various reasons. For example, a prosecutor is allowed to ask jurors if they believe in jury nullification and strike them from the jury if they admit it. A lot of the jury selection process seems to be designed to exclude smart and qualified jurors.

Some people say that, if you're being questioned for a jury, you should not admit that you understand jury nullification. The judge is being dishonest by asking you if you understand jury nullification. Therefore, you should be dishonest as well, if the issue in the trial is one you care about. For example, someone who believes strongly that marijuana should be legalized might want to try to get on a jury for a possession of marijuana case. However, it probably would be necessary to lie in order to get on the jury.

There was an important reason for repealing jury nullification. In any lawsuit involving a corporation and a person, jurors were always ruling in favor of the person. At that time, jurors knew about the intrinsic injustice of the way corporations are organized. Lobbying was performed and the right of jury nullification was repealed. The right to trial by jury was not repealed by Congress or an amendment; it was repealed by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations have the same right as people to own property and enforce contracts. This makes corporations more powerful than people, because a corporation's management is generally not accountable for the bad things they do, unless it's really egregious. The decision that corporations have the same rights as people, once made, is in force forever. It took decades of lobbying and bribing to get this decision, but stare decisis means that this victory is permanent. Corporations are evil because they allow people to control wealth and property, without being held accountable if abuse occurs.

The Supreme Court has allowed tort reform. When a corporation is sued, punitive damages are limited. Previously, jurors sometimes got so enraged that they awarded punitive damages that would bankrupt a corporation. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with such punitive damages, if the conduct was in fact very egregious. This would make the plaintiffs in the lawsuit the new owners of the corporation. There should be a corporate death penalty imposed sometimes. The Supreme Court has allowed the liability of corporations to be limited, reducing the risk when management does bad things. Further, knowing that their liability is limited, corporations can settle lawsuits at a discount and the terms of the settlement typically include a confidentiality clause.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is acceptable to require licenses for gun ownership. Gun ownership can be restricted. This repeals the right to own a gun. If you can charge $100 for a gun license, you can charge $100,000 for a gun license.

The Supreme Court has ruled that free speech and assembly is forbidden under certain circumstances.

The Supreme Court has repealed the right to unreasonable search and seizure. Under many circumstances, a search warrant is not needed.

The Supreme Court has repealed the right to habeas corpus.

The Supreme Court has repealed the right to a speedy trial, by allowing trials to drag on for years.

The Supreme Court has repealed states' rights, by allowing restrictive Federal laws. For example, states must comply with a Federally-mandated speed limits and legal drinking age; otherwise, they do not get Federal highway money. States must comply with Federal education guidelines, or they do not get any Federal education money. According to my interpretation, these laws violate the Constitution, but what the Supreme Court says is what counts. Stare decisis says that once such a decision is allowed, many others are also allowed.

In the days of Prohibition, it was generally understood that an amendment was needed to restrict the sale of alcohol. Nowadays, marijuana, recreational drugs, prescription drugs, vitamins, and herbal supplements can all be restricted merely by an act of Congress. Many of these substances are less harmful than alcohol and drugs that are available legally. In fact, herbal supplements and vitamins can be declared restricted merely by an FDA decision; an act of Congress is no longer even required.

One by one, all the important protections in the Constitution have been repealed. It is not done all at once, or people would object strongly. When it happens gradually, people don't complain. Each new violation is only slightly worse than those that came before.

The Supreme Court tends to make rulings that increase the Federal government's power, rather than making decisions that decrease the government's power.

The principle of stare decisis means that once a bad decision has been made, it has the full force of law forever. (Well, not exactly forever. These bad decisions will be in place only until the government collapses under its own incompetence.)

Why should I consider myself to be obligated to follow such bad decisions?