Township of Scott Sample Clauses

Township of Scott. Pennsylvania, et al (2019).138 In Kimble, Xxxxx writes “[w]hat we can decide, we can undecide. But stare decisis teaches that we should exercise that authority sparingly,” and in Knick she criticizes the decision for having “smashe[d] a hundred-plus years of legal rulings to smithereens,” calling out her counterparts since the “conservative majority may be similarly dismissive of precedent in other areas.”139 Xxxxxx makes a crucial point, writing, “Justice Xxxxx’x dissent in Xxxxx is likely a reiteration of Xxxxx’x position as ‘the Court’s leading proponent of respect for precedent’..Since ‘Chief Justice Xxxx X. Xxxxxxx Xx. and Justices Xxxxxx X. Xxxxx Xx. and Xxxxx Xxxxx — dissented [in Xxxxx], not necessarily because they thought the Constitution permits non-unanimous juries but because they thought the 1972 case should not be so lightly overruled.’”140 This demonstrates the purpose and function of consensus-building, and by the same token, the use of quasi-originalism, as a necessary deterrent for polarization within the Court. By remaining objective in terms of respecting the core tradition of precedent, Xxxxx’x compromise helps create a dynamic within the Court that can be reciprocated by her conservative counterparts in issues she deems important. This is not to say that such a method is perfect, but when compared to just originalism or living constitutionalism, quasi-originalism’s function in terms of “extending a branch” to the other side allows for the potential of consensus-building, and thus, limits polarization within the Court itself. 137 Berten, 2020 138 Berten, 2020 139 Berten, 2020 140 Berten, 2020