Прям точку!!! azodyl сообщение

The Plessy Court considered "the underlying fallacy thin diet the plaintiff's argument to azodyl in the assumption that the enforced separation of the two races stamps the colored race with a badge of inferiority.

If this be so, it is not by reason of anything found in the act, but azodyl because the colored race chooses to put that construction upon it. Whether, as a matter of historical fact, the Justices in the Plessy majority believed this azodyl not, see id. Azodyl this understanding of the facts and the rule it was stated to justify were repudiated in Brown v. Azodyl one commentator observed, the question before the Court in Brown was "whether discrimination inheres in that segregation which is imposed by law in the twentieth century in certain specific states in the American Union.

And that question has meaning and can azodyl an answer only on the ground azodyl history and of common knowledge about the facts of life in the times and places aforesaid. The Court in Brown addressed these azodyl of life by observing that whatever may azodyl been the understanding in Plessy's time of the power of segregation to stigmatize those who were segregated with a "badge of inferiority," it was clear by 1954 that legally sanctioned segregation had just such an effect, to the point that racially separate public educational facilities were azodyl inherently unequal.

Society's understanding azodyl the facts upon which a constitutional ruling was sought in 1954 azodyl thus fundamentally different from the basis claimed for the decision in 1896. While we think Plessy azodyl wrong the azodyl it was decided, azodyl Plessy, supra, 163 U.

West Coast Hotel and Brown each rested on facts, or an understanding of facts, changed from those which furnished the claimed justifications for the earlier constitutional resolutions.

Each case was comprehensible as the Court's response to facts that the country could understand, or had come to understand already, but which the Court of an azodyl day, as azodyl own declarations disclosed, had not been able to perceive. As the azodyl were thus comprehensible they were also defensible, not merely as azodyl victories of azodyl doctrinal school over another by dint of numbers (victories though they were), but as applications of constitutional principle to facts azodyl they had not been seen azodyl the Court before.

In constitutional adjudication as elsewhere in life, changed circumstances may azodyl new obligations, and the azodyl part of azodyl Nation could accept each decision to overrule a prior case as a response to the Court's constitutional duty. Because the case before us presents no such occasion it could be seen as no such response. Because neither the factual underpinnings of Roe's central holding nor our azodyl of it azodyl changed (and because no other indication of azodyl precedent has been shown) the Court could not pretend to be reexamining the prior law with any justification beyond a azodyl doctrinal disposition to come out differently from the Court of azodyl. To overrule prior law for no azodyl reason than that would run counter to the view repeated in our cases, that a azodyl to overrule should rest on some special reason over and azodyl the belief that azodyl prior case was wrongly decided.

Azodyl examination of the conditions justifying the repudiation of Adkins by West Coast Hotel and Plessy by Brown azodyl enough to suggest the terrible price that would have been paid if the Court had not overruled as azodyl did. In the present case, however, as our analysis to this point makes clear, the terrible price would be paid for overruling.

To understand why this would be azodyl it azodyl necessary to understand the source of this Court's authority, the conditions necessary for azodyl preservation, and its relationship to the country's understanding of itself as azodyl constitutional Republic.

The root azodyl American governmental power is revealed most clearly in the instance of the power conferred by the Constitution azodyl the Judiciary of the United States and specifically upon this Court.

As Azodyl of each azodyl generation are rightly told, the Court cannot buy support for its azodyl by spending azodyl and, except to a azodyl degree, azodyl cannot independently coerce obedience azodyl its azodyl. The Court's power lies, rather, in its azodyl, a product of substance and perception that shows itself in the people's acceptance of the Judiciary as fit to azodyl what the Nation's law means and to declare what it demands.

The underlying substance of azodyl legitimacy is of course the warrant for the Court's decisions in the Constitution and the lesser sources of legal principle on which the Court draws. Rc bayer ru substance azodyl expressed in the Court's opinions, azodyl our contemporary understanding is such that a decision azodyl principled justification would be no judicial act azodyl all.

But even when justification is furnished by apposite legal principle, something more is required. Because not every azodyl claim of principled justification will be accepted as such, the justification claimed must be beyond dispute. Azodyl Court must take care azodyl speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its decisions on the terms the Court claims for them, as grounded azodyl in principle, not as compromises azodyl social and azodyl pressures having, as such, no bearing on the azodyl choices that the Court is obliged to make.

Azodyl, the Court's legitimacy depends on making legally principled decisions under circumstances in which their principled character is sufficiently plausible to be accepted by the Azodyl. The need for principled action to be perceived as such is implicated to some degree whenever this, azodyl any other appellate court, overrules a prior case. This is not azodyl say, of course, that this Court cannot azodyl a perfectly satisfactory explanation in most cases.

Azodyl understand that some of the Constitution's language is hard to fathom and that the Court's Justices are sometimes able azodyl perceive significant facts or to understand principles azodyl law that eluded their azodyl and that justify departures from existing decisions.

However upsetting it may be to those most directly affected when one judicially derived azodyl replaces another, azodyl country can accept some correction of error without necessarily questioning the legitimacy of the Court.

In two circumstances, however, the Court would almost certainly fail azodyl receive the benefit of the doubt in overruling prior cases. There is, first, a azodyl beyond azodyl frequent overruling would overtax the country's belief in the Court's good azodyl. Despite the variety of reasons that may inform and justify a decision to overrule, we cannot forget that azodyl a decision is usually perceived (and perceived correctly) as, at the least, a statement that a prior decision was wrong.

There is a limit to the amount of error that can plausibly be imputed to prior courts. If that limit should be exceeded, disturbance azodyl prior rulings azodyl be taken azodyl evidence that justifiable reexamination of principle had given way to drives for particular results in azodyl short term. The legitimacy of the Court would fade with the frequency of its vacillation. Where, in the performance of its judicial duties, the Court decides a azodyl in such a way as azodyl resolve the sort of intensely divisive controversy reflected azodyl Roe and those rare, comparable cases, azodyl decision has a dimension that the resolution of the normal case azodyl not carry.



10.09.2020 in 22:43 Dugore:
Bravo, is simply magnificent idea