Stare decisis

Listening to the Senate confirmation hearing of Madam Justice Amy Coney Barrett is not for the pusillanimous. The use of the most fundamental debating tactics is either absent or curiously prevalent. Something else governs the performance. And Justice Barrett is noticeably making a calculated decision to preserve her advertised veneer of legitimacy and capacity by refusing to acknowledge what is the patent purpose of her nomination; namely, to defeat so-called “leftist” thinking in American society. To imagine (as Justice Barrett has mockingly done) that the appointees to the highest court in the United States of America are inexplicably sheltered from their religious or other cultural beliefs is utterly monstrous and illegitimate or at the very least glowingly inauthentic. It also defies both logic and instinct. To expect that a Trump appointee will do anything other than what they’ve been hired to do is preposterous.

Stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar case. Stare decisis ensures that cases with similar scenarios and facts are approached in the same way. Simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

Why it is that people in a position of power persist to clamour that their succession was propelled by an ethereal motive is beyond comprehension. We all know – especially after the Trump presidential election fiasco – that popularity little reflects intellectualism. This absurdity is all the more pressing on the eve of an election when strategy is obviously heightened. In a word the two political parties in America have once again collapsed into their respective corners.  Meanwhile the American public is expected to endure a tread mill repetition of party lines – proclamations which have long deafened the ears of Congress to which the mandates are putatively directed.

Listening to the hounds on both sides of the aisle has however reassured me that much of their rhetoric will be laughable within a short period of time. Barrett’s pretended leap from the esoteric to the vernacular is bad theatre. She has unwittingly joined the ranks of lascivious contenders like good old What’s-his-Name who previously ran as a Trump appointee. Barrett – to her discredit – has the same arrogance which characterized her fraternal number.

Mr. Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Apparently the oleaginous nature of political appointees does however assure their recollection of the proverb, “Don’t bite the hand that feeds“. These public servants – in addition to securing their tenure for a lifetime – also have the indisputable advantage of a big salary. On-lookers should remind themselves not to become distracted from this equally fundamental provision of the proceedings.

The play’s the thing wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king!
Hamlet, Act 2, Scene 2 William Shakespeare