from Brent Smith for World Net Daily:
We constitutional conservatives agree that precedent is rarely a good thing.
Beyond the crafting of our original documents and some, but not all, constitutional amendments, I can think of no precedent that has ended other than badly for America.
Oftentimes precedents begin innocently enough and with supposed good intentions. But once that framework has been set, or that foundation laid, more often than not those with less than good intentions are free to cite the original to justify building upon it.
And so it will be for us if President Trump decides to set a precedent and declare a national emergency on our Southern border. I don’t just mean in order to procure some funds for the wall, which for months has been tied up in the courts. Hardly earth-shattering. I mean a full-blown national emergency declaration, shutting the border down, as he threatened to do.
The original “bad precedent,” in my view, was Marbury v. Madison, Feb. 24, 1803, which established the doctrine of judicial review.
This single Supreme Court decision gave us what we have today – black-robed oligarchs who rule from on high over everything and everyone, including the other two supposedly co-equal branches of government.
Over the centuries, and more so in the past several decades, courts, as well as individual judges, thanks to judicial review, have been free to inject themselves into every facet of society.
And it’s not as if they’ve forced their way in. Whenever there is the slightest impasse, we uniformly, like Pavlov’s dogs, exclaim: “Let the courts decide!” It’s why the courts have become the most power entity in the nation.
This is clearly not what the founders had in mind.
When the court, particularly the Supreme Court renders a decision, that precedent becomes law, and all that succeed the decision must consider it, rather than the founding documents. This is referred to as stare decisis.
It isn’t supposed to be this way. Bad law is still bad law, and bad precedent is still that.