Today in the real world, the fact is that courts overturn precedents all the time. They might say they are more reluctant to do so in statutory cases, but they still do it a lot. Whether or not a court overturns precedent boils down to the two factors that I first suggested: the presence of reliance interests and the court's ideal of the proper role of judges. These considerations are more important than the statutory, constitutional, common law distinction. In common law cases, reliance is lower. In statutory cases, reliance might be higher. In some states, the legislature may be more active and may follow judicial precedents more closely. But reliance is a circular matter. The more people rely on decisions, the less likely you are to overturn …show more content…
Carhart, on April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court announced a 5-4 decision that upheld a federal ban on partial-birth abortions, despite the lack of an exception to protect the mother's health. The decision in Gonzales v. Carhart will have a relatively small direct impact: the specific type of procedure at issue called intact dilation and evacuation was only used in approximately 0.17 percent of abortions in the U.S. in 2000. The Carhart opinion therefore moved significantly toward the fetal rights by promoting the notion of fetal personhood, by arguably discounting scientific and medical evidence in favor of legislative findings, and by apparently lowering the level of scrutiny for abortion restrictions (Gordon, …show more content…
Yet prior precedent should be reconsidered when blind adherence to "settled" law binds the judiciary, and those who rely on its judgment, to doctrines that can no longer be justified in the current day and age. Stare decisis prevents change for the sake of change; it does not prevent any change at all. It creates a strong presumption in favor of the established law; it does not render that law immutable. Indeed, the genius of the common law rests in its ability to change, to recognize when a timeworn rule no longer serves the needs of society, and to modify the rule accordingly (Wallace, 2004). No matter what case you are in court for, no matter on the decision that the judges grants. At least you can voice your opinion and tell the people why you are there and to make your point of view. Hopefully they will listen and make some changes. If we the people do not fight for what we believe in or voice our opinion, we will never be heard. That is what is so great about the courts, someone will always disagree and that is okay because that is what makes America great, we all have certain beliefs and we can speak how we feel, that is our