A Justice Site
MIRROR SITES: CSUDH - Habermas - UWP
ISSUES AND CONCEPTS: Susan's Archive at UWP
Academic Resources - Daily Site Additions
Lectures - Notes - Texts - Self Tests - Discussions
Visual Sociology - Graduate Exam Study
POST TO: Tutoring - Learning Records - Transform-dom
SEARCH: Topics Index - Site Index - Issue Archives
Google Web Search - Google Site Search
California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: January 12, 2006
Latest Update: January 12, 2006
LEARNING RECORDSOn September 18, 2005, Karey Riems wrote in Message 6016: "As I read the definition of Stare Decisis, I almost thought I was reading an old concept, held up by Thomas Jefferson. I thought that our country moved so fast that it couldn't possibly hold up decisions from one Chief Justice to the next because it would be time to set a new precedent. However it does make sense, how many people who were appointed, not elected would be out to please the people who need or want such change? So "how is stare decisis reflective of different perspectives?" I don't think it is at all. I think it is reflective of the perspective of the generation before us, and before them. I think it takes a Chief Justice with nothing to lose to set a new precedent, but being appointed by the President clearly suggests he has much to lose.
~Karey"On October 18, 2005, jeanne responded: Good response, Karey. Generally, the priniciple behind stare decisis is that we want the law to be known, so that people can rely upon it. For that reason, all decisions are supposed to rest on precedent, so that they are predictable. But, over time the law does need to change, as societal conditions change. We usually chart this by following dissenting opinions, as they show that some judges are changing their minds. When a law has lots of dissenting opinions you can predict that new laws will be forthcoming. If the judiciary makes them, it's called judicial activism. Or the courts suggest that the legislature should consider new laws in the area.
A for your response, but I'd like you to let me know that you see the more specific meaning we use everyday in the law. Hope this helps.
love and peace, jeanne
Message 6288:"How does BGUTI apply to chairs all in a row with the teacher's platform in the front?
When the teacher's platform is in front and all the students are in rows, it is teaching us that we are all alike. Our thoughts and ideas are not our own, but belong to a mass of identical robots writing furiously whatever the teacher is saying. We are "getting used to" being apart of a group, a group that has nothing to say to each other. The only person with something to say of interest or of importance is the teacher for which we are all positioned to see.
Good response to Alfie Kohn's Better Get Used to It, Karey. A for response. Be aware that as I post material on Borland and Deal's leadership and management, I'll want you to relate it back. For example, here, the chairs in a row clearly indicate that the leadership comes from authority, not from creativity on the part of students.
love and peace, jeanne
Message 6462:In reading through the excerpt of 'Of Pandas and People', I was suprised it was meant for high school students. Darwin is mentioned, at the bottom of page one, but only generally and quickly. I wonder if the term Intelligent Design came about because of the biblical implication that comes from creationism; perhaps to keep people from having an automated response to it. As for Baker, ("We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn't do it, but God did." ) I agree that even people who believe in Intelligent Design would disagree with that statement.
Reply:Karey, statements like Baker's result from the arrogance of knowingness. He is so sure he's right about his own belief system that he doesn't hear the implications of what he says.
December 19, 2005