Judicial Decision Making/U.S District Court

Stare decisis is a legal principle which states that judges should follow the earlier court decision when dealing with cases that have similar facts.  In other words, the court is supposed to apply a similar principle to all future cases that have similar facts.  Stare decisis contributes to the efficiency of the court system in that, first, the courts examine a case carefully and this means that when dealing with a  similar case, the courts will adhere to the major point of law or rather the judges will use legal reasoning which leads to stability in the law (Gaines & Miller, 2007). Another thing is that the court system becomes effective by following the principle in that there is a hierarchical legal system where the higher courts established the law that all lower courts should follow (Gaines & Miller, 2007).  This hierarchical structure promotes uniformity and more importantly, courts do not overrule but rather they promote equality and efficiency.

 The concept of stare decisis from the ‘stare decisis case'

             Three results from the ‘Findlaw (2019) that have shed light on the concept of stare decisis are ‘TAYLOR V. CHARTER MEDICAL CORPORATION', ‘KILGORE V. BLACK STONE OIL COMPANY' and ‘TILLEY V. TJX COMPANIES INC'.  These cases have helped understand that in most cases, judges are unable to provide justice and in such cases, they use the principle of stare decisis as it allows them to compare a substantive legal doctrine to similar cases.  In the above cases, judges have avoided uncertainty by comparing their opinion against similar cases.  These cases show that stare decisis is a principle of policy and a judicial doctrine where lower courts follow the higher court decision when dealing with cases that have similar fact (Findlaw, 2019). In addition to reducing uncertainty, judges who lack expertise in some cases can use the opinion of other judges since they act like they are practicing a trading experience.  In addressing the cases, judges apply the previous ruling from the higher courts or in other words, all courts follow the Supreme Court ruling since it is the highest court.  The principle of stare decisis becomes obligatory as it comes from the legal hierarchy.

Maureen Massey v. Joanne Mandell- the issue, in this case, is that the trial court opposed the motion to change the venue arguing that the sub (1) (a) and (b) does not apply.  The trial court's ruling adheres to the principle of statutory construction and argues that the court should apply the stature in dealing with a particular case (Findlaw, 2019).  After reviewing this case, one important point is that the Supreme Court has provided interpreting statute for each case to avoid overruling.  The trial court interprets the statute following the Supreme Court rule and avoids overruling the statutory precedent.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius- In this case, Congress followed the public interest and provided them with health insurance by passing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  However, Florida and other States raised issues and argued that the passing of ACA was unconstitutional because the Congress adopted the individual mandate using the Commerce Clause powers and the ACA was unconstitutional (Constitutional Accountability Center, 2019). In addressing the matter, the court affirmed that the Anti-Injunction Act does not prohibit the individual mandate since the mandate was not a tax but rather it was a penalty.  In my own opinion, the court's ruling made the most federalism decisions under the Commerce Clause. It concluded that the ACA's requirement was unconstitutionally coercive. Through the doctrine of stare decisis, the court employed the Congress' taxing power and used the existing law on Medicaid expansion.

Several States challenged the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion but the Court of Appeals confirmed that the Medicaid expansion was valid or rather it was constitutional.  The Court's rationale for upholding the mandate was that the Anti-Injunction Act does not allow the federal courts to file a lawsuit against the collection of tax (Constitutional Accountability Center, 2019). Secondly, Congress applied the Commerce Clause powers to enact the law for regulating tax.  Note that the arguments toward ACA's Medicaid expansion were based on the balance of power but the Supreme Court affirmed that the Congress has the power to expand Medicaid.

            According to the Erie doctrine, the federal courts should apply a substantive law in dealing with cases. The Erie Doctrine is important in that it provides a constitutional principle that governs both the federal courts and state law. This means that even though most of the State law cases are governed by the federal law, the State law has the authority to decide the law that the federal level should apply in addressing cases (Schubert, 2013).  The Erie doctrine is important as it allows the court to apply both federal law and state substantive law and a result, the court avoids inequitable administration of promotes equality and justice in diversity jurisdiction cases. Today, the Erie Doctrine play a significant role in judicial federalism. This means that in diversity cases, the federal court will apply the state law and the doctrine will ensure that the courts avoid the use of favorable law (Schubert, 2013). Today, the federal court should adhere to the State’s decision regarding the law to apply when handling diversity cases.

 In Maureen Massey v. Joanne Mandell case, several aspects of the case may reside in separate jurisdictions. In this case, there should be no a concurrent jurisdiction but rather the case should be handled in the State court since the case has to do with personal matters (Findlaw, 2019). The court's inherent authority does not determine a venue but according to my opinion, it is important to follow the States procedural rules and in this case, the State is the place where the injury occurred.  The case should be handled in Lapeer County since the original injury occurred at this place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 Findlaw. (2019). “Doctrine of stare decisis”. Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from:  https://lawcrawler.findlaw.com/LCsearch.html#?cludoquery=doctrine%20of%20stare%20decisis&cludopage=12&cludorefpt=FindLaw%20for%20Legal%20Professionals%20%7C%20Law%20%26%20Legal%20Information&cludorefurl=https%3A%2F%2Flp.findlaw.com%2F

 

 Constitutional Accountability Center. (2019). National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.  Retrieved from: https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/florida-v-h-h-s/

 

  Findlaw. (2019). MASSEY V. The Children’s Center, Lisa Dilg, Tim Hawley And Carrie Dornan, Defendants.  Thomson Reuters. Retrieved from: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-supreme-court/1053835.html

 

Schubert, F. U. E. (2013). Introduction to law and the legal system. Cengage Learning,

 

Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. R. (2007). Criminal justice in action. Belmont, CA: Thomson

Wadsworth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. R. (2007). Criminal justice in action. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.