Today's bonus issue walks through why the answer to this question is messier (and more revealing about the Supreme Court's institutional role and authority) than it might seem at first blush
The unpeeling of the onion here -- and the understanding that the Court's authority to "bind" parties not before it is far more contingent than we frequently imagine -- emphasizes how profoundly corrosive things like Clarence Thomas's clumsy corruption and Samuel Alito's sneering contempt for every American not named Samuel Alito have become. Once the Court loses its version of the "moral high ground," it plummets down to the moral low ground with the rest of our system and things get ugly, as we're beginning to see.
I had not realized until now that Prince Edward County, Virginia was directly involved in the Brown case. The county supervisors shut down the public schools for 5 years after Brown to avoid desegregation.
It seems obvious that a court decision should not bind non-litigants. New litigants may have new arguments and new facts that were not considered in previous decisions this is especially these days, when the Court is so willing to overturn its own precedent.
fascinating discussion.
Such a clear explanation. I always appreciate your insights. I appreciate your clarity just as much.
The unpeeling of the onion here -- and the understanding that the Court's authority to "bind" parties not before it is far more contingent than we frequently imagine -- emphasizes how profoundly corrosive things like Clarence Thomas's clumsy corruption and Samuel Alito's sneering contempt for every American not named Samuel Alito have become. Once the Court loses its version of the "moral high ground," it plummets down to the moral low ground with the rest of our system and things get ugly, as we're beginning to see.
Plummets from the moral high ground or blew-up like the Hindenburg?
I had not realized until now that Prince Edward County, Virginia was directly involved in the Brown case. The county supervisors shut down the public schools for 5 years after Brown to avoid desegregation.
It seems obvious that a court decision should not bind non-litigants. New litigants may have new arguments and new facts that were not considered in previous decisions this is especially these days, when the Court is so willing to overturn its own precedent.
A very enlightening explanation. Thanks Steve.