Scenario Case for Stare Decisis Doctrine
In discussing whether Marbury v. Madison could be the precedent to the case of Linda and Jennifer, we need to examine the ratio decidendi arrived in Marbury v. Madison and determine if these ratio should be applicable to Linda and Jennifer. Broadly speaking, Justice Marshal has concluded 3 ratio in Marbury v. Madison, which are (paraphrasing):
1. Marbury has legal rights to the commission as his appointment to office is non-revocable
2. Where the above mentioned rights is injured, the law affords Marbury remedy in the form of a writ of mandamus
3. The Supreme Court did not have original jurisdiction over the case in which an original action, issuing the writ of mandamus, is requested as the Judicial Act of 1789 it relied upon is found unconstitutional.
Given that Jennifer’s appointment to the head of Environmental Protection Agency is a position that is appointed by the President and given a cabinet rank, the Environmental Protection Agency is still an independent department from the cabinet. As such, one can draw parallelism in the independence of both the Environmental Protection Agency and the federal
…show more content…
Madison is precedent to the case with Jennifer insofar with the exception of the decision that the court did not have the ability to grant relief. It will be advantages for Jennifer to rely upon the first two ratio to exert her rights to the letter and demand relief. However, for Linda, Marbury v. Madison is not precedent to the case as there is restrictive distinction to the material facts of the case that were immaterial to Marbury v. Madison; whether the right to the letter has indeed been revoked and whether withholding the letter constitute to sufficient communication of revocation. If Linda could convince the judge that she should have rights to the letter, then Linda could exert that the second ration in Marbury v. Madison would be precedent to the case and the court should provide