Re: “looking behind the curtain”
“WHEN RATIONALE NO LONGER WITHSTANDS CAREFUL ANALYSIS?”
This compliments the:
IRREFUTABLE/IRREBUTABLE PRESSUMPTION DOCTRINE1 (Doe-v-Snyder)
I found this 2009 LEXIS citation so deeply interesting because of the possibilities it eludes to?
Is this the genesis of reform on the judicial side?
At least from a what I think is starting to occur with Doe -v- Snyder
“The doctrine of stare decisis is of course ‘essential to the respect accorded to the judgements of the Court and to the stability of the law,’ but it does not compel us to follow a past decision when its rationale no longer withstands ‘careful analysis.’ – Arizona v. Gant, Case No. 07-542 (S. Ct. 4/21/09)
1″The doctrine provides that if a state denies a person or group a right based upon a particular presumption, the presumption must be universally true and there must be no reasonable alternatives available to determine the classification. In plain language, the appellants argue that SORNA denies a person their right to reputation by presuming that a conviction for an enumerated offense means they are likely to sexually recidivate. …” (Doe -v- Snyder, U.S. 6th cir. Court of Appeals) (see also: STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF ORAL ARGUMENT CASE NO. 15-2346/2486 162 pages.) (see also: INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO THE COMPLAINT 2:12-cv-11194-RHC-DRG)