Friday Feature Film-Pierson v Post (Business Law Prof)

A recent article (2/12/23) from the Volokh Conspiracy made me think of this excellent video made by Enrique from Prior Probability. Back in November, Enrique referenced a blog post where he provided a written explanation of Pierson v Post (1805) in response to one of my blog entries.

However, after reading his blog entry, I searched for Pierson on YouTube; one of the top search results happened to be Enrique’s video.

Excellent work!!

Friday Feature Film-Marbury v. Madison (PublicResourceOrg)

Additional Sources:

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/5us137

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/5/137/

https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep005/usrep005137/usrep005137.pdfhttps://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep005/usrep005137/usrep005137.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/supreme-court-case-library/marbury-v-madison

Friday Feature Film-Barrett says Roe v. Wade is not a ‘super-precedent’ (Washington Post)

Posting this video is not intended to provide any commentary on the normative claims encompassing the reproductive rights debate or a critique of the Dobbs ruling.

However, this video does ignite an intriguing debate regarding the interaction of the judicial doctrine of stare decisis and whether there is case law that is unquestionably settled (super-precedents).

For further reading, please see Precedent, Super-Precedent (2007) by legal scholar Michael Sinclair (Hat tip/:Prior Probability for recommending this article back in 2021).