Verification Re: your understanding of precedent

[Richard Hills]

>Whether Supreme Court justices are influenced by law; their specific question is whether justices feel >free to ignore precedents with which they disagree.

I think in most cases Supreme Court justices are in a unique position. Their primary "job" is to interpret and apply the Constitution. To the extent a particular justice feels that a particular precedent does not correctly reflect the intent of the Constitution, are they not following "law" by ignoring precedent? I don't think so. The law of the land is the Constitution, not necessarily what 5 justices and a particular time say it is.

I do not, however, believe this principle applies to lower court judges. They should be bound by the principles of precedent and stare decisis.



Richard