In this Article, (click here) I argue that the preclusive effect of precedent raises due-process concerns, and, on occasion, slides into unconstitutionality. The Due Process Clause requires that a court give a person notice and an opportunity for a hearing before depriving her of life, liberty or property. Because of this requirement, courts have held in the context of issue preclusion that as a general rule, judicial determinations can bind only parties. The preclusion literature asserts that this parties only requirement does not apply to stare decisis because stare decisis, in contrast to issue preclusion, is a flexible doctrine. Yet stare decisis often functions inflexibly in the federal courts, particularly in the courts of appeals. I claim that in its rigid application - when it effectively forecloses a litigant from meaningfully urging error - correction - stare decisis unconstitutionally deprives a litigant of the right to a hearing on the merits of her claims. To avoid the due-process problem, I suggest that courts render stare decisis more flexible; specifically, I propose that courts remove rules - like, for example, the rule that one appellate panel cannot overrule another - that create nearly insurmountable barriers to error - correction. stare decisis, precedent, preclusion, due process, estoppel
She has some kind of cahonies if she is going to attempt to change Due Process which is defined THE SAME WAY twice in two separate amendments. She likes to play god, the all-knowing.
Coney-Barrett wants to ASSAULT the USA Constitution as if it was written wrong. People on the right often feel as though there is too much wiggle room in the laws of the country. That of course is their concern when it comes to crime, but, of course, money is a citizen and never able to commit crime. There is a prejudice in the way Comey-Barrett ASSAULTS the USA Consitution and it stems form the complaints of the right-wing of the party. That is what the Federalist Society judges chronically contend with, "When you get to the bench make sure you straighen out the wayward practices of those that legislate from the bench."
Due Process (click here)
The Constitution (click here) states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law ("legality") and provide fair procedures. Most of this essay concerns that promise. We should briefly note, however, three other uses that these words have had in American constitutional law....
At a time in our history when the country is profoundly seeking to change systemic racism, Comey-Barrett wants to use her slimy ideas to alter the meaning of the USA Consitution.
